Appeal No. 2002-2274
Application No. 08/387,158
limit Linder’s “about 0.1% by weight of indium” (col. 1,
lines 24-25) to “0.1% by weight of indium”. As stated by a
predecessor of our reviewing appellate court: “In view of the
flexibility in meaning of the term ‘about,’ however, we are not
prepared to accept appellant’s insistence that the example given
in the Lenher patent of a pH value ‘maintained at about 7.0’
means maintenance at precisely 7. said to be the exact neutrality
point.” In re De Vaney, 185 F.2d 679, 683, 88 USPQ 97, 101 (CCPA
1950). Likewise, we do not interpret Linder’s “about 0.1% by
weight” as meaning “precisely 0.1% by weight”. Linder expresses
the upper limits of his ranges to, at most, two decimal places.
Linder’s “about 0.1% by weight”, therefore, reasonably appears to
include a percentage which is higher than 0.1 by one unit in the
second position from the decimal point, i.e., 0.11% by weight.
This is the lower limit of the percentage of indium required by
the appellants’ claims.
The appellants argue (brief, pages 8-9) that the following
disclosure in Linder (col. 1, lines 45-50) teaches away from
using more than 0.1 wt% indium: “The indium additive makes it
possible to maintain the desired anode potential and high current
efficiency. The additive is selected within the range 0.005-0.1%
by weight, preferably 0.01-0.07% by weight, and most preferably
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007