Interference 103,482
The interpretation that Dolle’s claims read on impossible
processes of preparing syndio-isoblock polymers having
molecular chains in which syndiotactic and isotactic sequences
are present by polymerizing ethylene itself, for example, the
interpretation Ewen and Dr. Gauthier would have us adopt,
ignores both the general rule that all claim limitations must
be given effect and the teaching of Dolle’s specification as a
whole. Dolle’s specification teaches, “[t]he invention
relates to a syndio-isoblock polymer having long isotactic and
syndiotactic sequences and to a process for its preparation”
(Dolle Application 08/147,006, Spec., p. 1, l. 1-3).
On similar facts wherein the process Angstadt claimed
could be read to encompass both operative and inoperative
embodiments, the court concluded, In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d at
504, 190 USPQ at 219 (emphasis added):
Depriving inventors of claims which adequately protect
them and limiting them to claims which practically invite
appropriation of the invention while avoiding
infringement
inevitably has the effect of suppressing disclosure.
What
the dissent seems to be obsessed with is the thought of
catalysts which won’t work to produce the intended
result.
. . . Without undue experimentation or effort or expense
the
combinations which do not work will readily be discovered
and, of course, nobody will use them and the claims do
not cover them.
95
Page: Previous 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007