Appeal No. 2002-0984
Application 09/246,179
OPINION
We begin by determining the scope and content of appellants'
claims because it is the claims which define the protection for
which appellants seek a patent. United Carbon Co. v. Binney &
Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 232, 55 USPQ 381, 383-384 (1942) (citing
General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. , 304 U.S. 364,
369, 37 USPQ 466, 468-469 (1938); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); SRI Int'l. v.
Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 586
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). We shall apply our analysis to
representative claim 6, appellants' broadest, independent claim.
Claim 6 is directed to a process "comprising" 6 (six)
specific steps denominated as steps a) through f). As a
"comprising" claim, claim 1 requires the recited steps but does
not exclude any other steps disclosed in the prior art, including
both those disclosed but not claimed by appellants and those
neither disclosed nor contemplated by appellants. In re Baxter,
656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981). Thus, claim 6
requires the 6 (six) recited steps but does not exclude any other
steps.
The first two steps of the process in claim 6 are directed
to establishing the characteristic properties of the "polymeric
product" being "produced" or "modified." These properties are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007