Appeal No. 1998-3232 Page 8
Application No. 08/738,920
The argued limitation (brief, page 3) relates to a light
phase that contains a percentage of 1-olefin and dissolved
copolymer that would “give rise to plugging of equipment....” 5
Yet, as set forth at page 4, lines 20-28 of appellant’s
specification, the present invention relates to a process
wherein the concentration of 1-olefin and the amount of
dissolved polymer in the light phase is reduced so as to
reduce equipment plugging problems.
The fundamental purpose of a patent claim is to define
the scope of protection and hence what the claim precludes6
others from doing. All things considered, because a patentee
has the
right to exclude others from making, using and selling the
invention covered by a United States letters patent, the
5 Appellant refers to page 13, line 6, et seq and page 4, line 20, et
seq. as supporting that argued limitation (Paper No. 36, page 2). The portion
of page 13 of the specification referred to by appellant relates to a first
example wherein a fresh supply of ethylene is not added to a high pressure
separation (HPS) whereas the referred to portion of page 4 of the
specification relates to a light phase having a reduced copolymer content and
a reduced 1-olefin concentration wherein a fresh supply of ethylene is added
to the HPS.
6 See In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5, 224
USPQ 617, 625 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007