Appeal No. 1997-4318
Application 08/469,806
scope of the claimed invention does not so limit the scope of the claims which are otherwise definite
when construed in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Cormany, 476 F.2d 998, 1000-02, 177 USPQ 450, 451-53 (CCPA 1973). Any conflict
between appellant’s intended invention and the actual scope of the claims should be addressed under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Id.; see also Zletz, supra; Prater, 415 F.2d 1393 at 1404, 162
USPQ at 550.
And, second, since there is no disclosure pertaining to microgranulate inorganic pigments
containing “organic liquefiers” in the written description of the invention disclosed in the specification, do
the appealed claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement?
See generally, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 264, 191 USPQ 90, 96, 98 (CCPA 1976).
Reversed
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007