Appeal No. 1996-1942 6
Application No. 07/977,834
Claim Construction
Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject matter. During
patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Our construction of the subject matter defined by appellant's claims 15 and 21 is
that they are drawn in product-by-process format. See generally, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d
695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The language present in each claim
directed to “a microencapsulated adhesive composition,” requires that the claimed
composition be in the form of polymerized alkyl acrylate or methacrylate. Our position is
supported by the specification which states, “[t]he present inventor has found that
acrylate or methacrylate monomers can be microencapsulated by well-known
microencapsulation techniques, and then these monomers can be polymerized inside the
microcapsules to form adhesives.” See specification, page 2, lines 5-8. Accordingly, as
both independent claims 15 and 21 are directed to “a microencapsulated adhesive,” we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007