Appeal No. 2001-1720
Application No. 08/821,869
person is deemed to read the words used in the patent documents
with an understanding of their meaning in the field, and to have
knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field.”);
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. B.P. Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578,
38 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(“A technical term used in a
patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it
would be given by persons experienced in the field of the
invention, unless it is apparent from the patent and the
prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a
different meaning.”).
The examiner’s rejections are premised on the assumption
that the thickening agent (e.g., polymethyl methacrylate)
described in Greff at column 7, line 65 to column 8, line 15 is a
“gelling agent.” (Answer, page 4; Feb. 15, 2000 Office action,
page 2.) The examiner, however, has not presented any evidence
or scientific reasoning to establish that Greff’s thickening
agent can function as a gelling agent, i.e. a superabsorbent.
While Greff discloses polymethyl methacrylate as a suitable
thickening agent, the reference is completely silent on whether
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007