Appeal No. 2000-2149 15
Application No. 08/859,901
KIMLIN, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE, DISSENTING:
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues regarding the reversal of the examiner’s
rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 32 recites, inter alia, “mixed poly(ethylene)(propylene)glycols.” The
specification does not provide any guidance concerning the meaning of the claim language.
Therefore, since claim language must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification during ex parte prosecution, I cannot agree with the
majority that the claim language should be interpreted as “a copolymer of ethylene and
propylene glycol” (p. 8 of decision, 2nd paragraph). In my view, absent any definition in
the specification, the language is sufficiently broad to embrace a mixture of ethylene glycol
and propylene glycol, as well as the copolymer of the two monomers. Since both
references teach the use of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill lin the art to use a mixture of the glycols as a solvent. In re
Kerkhoven, supra.
Moreover, even accepting the majority ‘s interpretation of the claim language, I find
a close similarity in chemical structure between a copolymer of ethylene glycol and
propylene glycol and polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol. Accordingly, since
each of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol was
known in the art as a suitable solvent, I am convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007