Appeal No. 2001-1720
Application No. 08/821,869
Feb. 15, 2000, pages 3-4.) Further, claims 4 through 6, 10
through 12, and 22 through 25 on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greff in view of Shanbrom
and further in view of Rackur. (Answer, page 3, referring to1, 2
the Office action of Feb. 15, 2000, page 4.)
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites that
the composition comprises a “gelling agent.” The present
specification enlightens one skilled in the relevant art that the
“gelling agents are superabsorbents and include crosslinked
polymers of acrylate or methacrylate monomers...” (Page 4, lines
26-30.) Thus, we must interpret the term “gelling agent” as
referring to “superabsorbents.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v.
Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed.
Cir. 1998)(“It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of
the invention through whose eyes the claims are construed. Such
1In the Feb. 15, 2000 Office action, claims 16-18 were
also rejected on this ground. The answer, however, does not
include claims 16-18 in the statement of the rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007