Appeal No. 1998-2190
Application No. 08/593,266
Furthermore, it was well known in the art to use either zinc
or zinc alloy powders as the active material for the negative
electrode in alkaline batteries without mercury.5 Additionally, we
construe the limitation of “an active material comprised of
mercuryless zinc powder” in claim 60 on appeal as including zinc or
zinc alloys. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(During prosecution before the Patent
and Trademark Office, the claimed language must be given the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as
it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art). See the specification, page 32, where the negative electrode
active material comprises zinc powder containing 500 ppm of
bismuth, indium and lead. We also note that the transitional term
“comprised” means that the scope of the claim includes the recited
material as an essential element (i.e., mercuryless zinc powder)
but any other materials or elements (i.e., alloy components) may be
part of the claimed scope. See Vehicular Tech. v. Titan Wheel Int.
Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d 1841, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the subject
5See Shinoda et al., cited in the final Office action, at
col. 2, ll. 53-66.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007