Interference 103,482
Angstadt first instructs at 537 F.2d at 501, 190 USPQ at 217:
. . . [T]he claim limitation “to form * * *
hydroperoxides” must be given effect since we must give
effect to all claim limitations. See In re Geerdes,
491 F.2d 1260, 180 USPQ 789 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1974); In
re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 57 CCPA 1314, 166 USPQ 545 (1970).
Similarly, we must give effect to the phrase “for the
preparation of 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” as a
functional limitation of Dolle’s claims. That is, even if
Dolle’s claims could be broadly interpreted to read on
processes for homopolymerizing ethylene or any other
symmetrical olefin without a 1-olefin comonomer, persons
skilled in the art immediately would have understood from
Dolle’s disclosure that the processes claimed include only
those processes for producing polymers from olefin monomers
which may be polymerized to form syndio-isoblock polymers
having molecular chains in which syndiotactic and isotactic
sequences are present. “There is nothing intrinsically wrong
in defining something by what it does rather than what it is.”
In re Echerd, 471 F.2d 632, 635, 176 USPQ 321, 322-23 (CCPA
1973).
94
Page: Previous 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007