Appeal No. 2001-2538 Page 9
Application No. 08/894,193
that the composition contain an amino component would be rendered
meaningless. Such a construction is unreasonably broad and we decline to
adopt it.
The examiner’s argument that EDTA should be considered an “amino
component” is a closer call, but ultimately unpersuasive. In the examiner’s favor,
EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid), comprises amino groups and there is
nothing in the claim language to prevent construing “amino component” to
include EDTA. In addition, the specification does not provide an express
definition of “amino component” that would exclude EDTA. See Optical Disc
Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1334, 54 USPQ2d 1289, 1295 (Fed.
Cir. 2000) (“Without evidence in the patent specification of an express intent to
impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the term takes on its ordinary
meaning.”). The ordinary meaning of “amino component” would seem to
encompass all amines, not just primary and secondary amines.
Appellant, however, argues that the “amino component” recited in the
claims refers to primary or secondary amino groups.2 See the Appeal Brief, page
11. In Appellant’s favor, the specification emphasizes the interactions between
allantoin and primary or secondary amino groups. See, e.g., page 2
(“[A]ldehydes and ketones . . . can be formed by oxidative cleavage of the double
bonds [of sorbic acid]. Polymerization products of these aldehydes, like the
reaction products of these aldehydes with amino acids or other primary and
2 The amino groups in EDTA, by contrast, are tertiary amino groups. See the Appeal Brief, page
12.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007