Appeal No. 1998-3232 Page 9
Application No. 08/738,920
public must be apprised of what the patent covers, so that
those who approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a
patent may more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection in evaluating the possibility of
infringement and dominance. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378,
1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
In the present case, we have reviewed the appellant's
disclosure to help us determine the meaning of the above-noted
claimed terminology. That review has revealed that the
appellant's specification states at page 4 that:
[a]n intended result of the injection of a fresh
supply of ethylene into the reaction mixture for
separation in the HPS is that it reduces the
concentration of 1-olefin in the light phase present
in the HPS, because of the dilution effect of the
added ethylene. This in turn reduces the solubility
of polymer in the light phase thus increasing the
yield and minimizing the tendency of dissolved
polymer to plug the equipment intended to handle
such light phase downstream of the HPS.
However, that portion of the disclosure does not resolve
the inherent conflict between the argued limitation requiring
that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007