Interference 103,482
provided for each disclosure’s examples (RD 4-5). We cannot
accept Dr. Atwood’s view that persons skilled in this art
would have been confused by the language of Dolle’s claims in
light of Dolle’s examples and the distinctions he makes
between the syndio-isoblock polymers made by the processes he
claims and the syndiotactic and isotactic-stereoblock
polyolefins made in accordance with prior art processes. That
some effort might be required to determine the metes and
bounds of the subject matter Dolle claims is not detrimental
to patentability. Ewen has not established that persons
skilled in the art would have been confused by the language of
Dolle’s claims or unduly burdened to determine the metes and
bounds of the subject matter claimed. Considered in a vacuum,
the language of inventors’ claims may be confusing to anyone
working in the art. However, persons having ordinary skill in
the art must interpret claim language in light of the
supporting specification. In that light, the meaning of 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” in Claims 4, 16, 19,
28, 31, and 32 of Dolle Application 08/147,006 would have been
sufficiently definite.
85
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007