Interference 103,482
(2) to add new Claims 31-37 (Appendix D) in response to Sua
Sponte Decision On Patentability Of Dolle’s Claims 4, 6-8, 12-
26 And Proposed Claims 27-30 [(Appendix E)](Paper No. 53).
GG. July 31, 1998 -- The APJ entered Decision On
Reconsideration (Paper No. 68) on Ewen’s Request For
Reconsideration Or, Alternatively, Clarification Under 37 CFR
1.640(c)(Paper No. 62) of Decision On Ewen Motion For Judgment
No. 1 Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a)(Paper 18)(Paper No. 60).
Ewen asked the APJ to clarify the meaning, and alter his
interpretation, of the phrase “sequence length” in Dolle’s
claims. In response, the APJ stated (Paper No. 68, p. 2,
first para.):
. . . I construed “sequence length” as used in the phrase
“a syndio-isoblock polymer having molecular chains in
which
syndiotactic and isotactic sequences are present and the
sequence length is 3 to 50 monomer units....” to mean the
average length of the isotactic and syndiotactic
sequences
of the polymers. By this I meant that the average length
of the isotactic and the syndiotactic chains must each be
within the range 3 to 50 monomer units. . . . In my view,
the person having ordinary skill in the art considering
Dolle’s specification as a whole would conclude that the
“sequence length” of 3 to 50 monomer units referred to in
the claims was the n and n defined in thesyn iso
specification
and reported in the examples.
The APJ indicated that his prior interpretation was supported
by the uncontradicted Winter declaration that the phrase
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007