Appeal No. 1998-3115
Application No. 08/384,520
The examiner points out that the appellants argued during
prosecution that “[c]omponent (c) of component (B) is an
ethylene-based copolymer whose properties are different from
those of component (A)” (amendment filed on August 1, 1997,
paper no. 15, page 3), and argues that, taking that statement
to be correct, the claims are indefinite because they do not
specify that component (B)(c) is different from component (A)
(answer, page 8). The examiner also argues that if components
(B)(c) and (A) can be the same, then their relative amounts
are indefinite. See id.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by
one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification
and prior art. See 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 Herz, 537 F.2d 549,
551, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007