Appeal No. 2000-0595
Serial No. 09/025,400
absence of the denotation of a compound or resin containing more
than one epoxy group, according to page 7, line 15 to page 8,
line 19, of the specification (Answer, page 3). In other words,
the examiner states that the term “epoxy” encompasses a single
epoxy group which is not curable since at least two epoxy groups
are required for reaction with the curing agent to obtain a
crosslinked structure (id.).
The legal standard for definiteness of claim language is
whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been apprised
of the scope of the claims in light of the teachings of the
specification. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31
USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We disagree with the
examiner’s construction of the claimed term “curable epoxy.” One
of ordinary skill in this art would have clearly construed the
word “curable” by its ordinary meaning as “capable of being
cured.” Thus the contested language of the claim only includes
any “epoxy” which is capable of being cured, thus excluding the
examiner’s interpretation of “a single epoxy group which is not
curable” (Answer, page 3). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
this art would have known the scope of the claims, especially in
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007