Ex Parte DISMUKES et al - Page 5


              Appeal No. 2001-0233                                                                                       
              Application 08/668,640                                                                                     
              area and volume depends upon, inter alia, mean particle size (Specification, page 8,                       
              line 14), relative amounts of ceramic precursor and particulate material (Specification,                   
              page 9, lines 6-9), and final heating temperature (Specification, page 12, lines 19-23).                   
              Thus, any mixture which meets the claimed mixture elements is deemed “capable of”                          
              forming an end product having the recited properties.                                                      
                     The Appellants next correctly note that Takeda regards the silazane component                       
              as “essential” to the invention.  (Appeal Brief, page 20, lines 19 - 24).  However, we                     
              remind the appellants that all of the disclosures of a prior art reference, including non-                 
              preferred embodiments, must be considered for what they fairly teach one of ordinary                       
              skill in the art.  Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d                   
              1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).  Takeda explicitly teaches                      
              that less than 5% by weight of the silazane would sometimes fail to provide electrical                     
              insulation (column 6, lines 50 - 52) and the composition preferably contains from 5-40%                    
              by weight silazane (column 6, lines 47-48).  These statements, while preferring the                        
              presence of silazane, do not teach its mandatory presence.  We note that comparative                       
              Examples 1 and 2 (see column 10) clearly evidence the absence of silazane for the                          
              purposes of comparison, producing functional, if not preferred compositions.                               
                     Additionally, the Appellants assert that claim 1 is written in “consisting essentially              
              of” language and therefore excludes an organic silicon polymer.  (Reply Brief, page 2,                     
              lines 6-10).    Typically, "consisting essentially of" precedes a list of ingredients in a                 
              composition claim or a series of steps in a process claim. By using the term "consisting                   
              essentially of," the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed                    
              ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and                


                                                           5                                                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007