Appeal No. 2002-0322
Application 08/681,870
We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments with respect to claim interpretation.
Contrary to appellants’ contentions in the brief (e.g., pages 5), the plain language of appealed
claim 9 contains no requirement for a hydrolyzed and neutralized ethylene copolymer or a
neutralized acid copolymer. While it is clear from the written description in the specification
(e.g., pages 5 and 7) and the brief (e.g., page 4) that appellants intend to claim a composition
containing such a component, we find no basis in appealed claim 9 to read therein any such
limitation from the specification and its examples, see generally, Zletz, supra; Priest, supra;
Prater, supra, and appellants’ intentions do not limit the scope of appealed claim 9. See
generally, Zletz, supra; In re Cormany, 476 F.2d 998, 1000-02, 177 USPQ 450, 451-53 (CCPA
1973). We note, however, that appellants correctly state with respect to appealed claim 9 the
composition of the unneutralized ethylene copolymer and the optional unneutralized acid
copolymer and that the cover further includes a metal salt in the brief (page 6) and reply brief
(page 2). Thus, we consider appealed claim 9 with respect to the application of Horiuchi thereto
by the examiner on the basis of all of the limitations thereof regardless of the issue of whether the
limitations are supported by the written description of the specification as filed. See Ex parte
Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir 1984).
Appellants contend in the brief that “[i]n the present application, the acid copolymers are
not neutralized prior to blending with the acrylate copolymer” as “the acid and acrylate
copolymer are first blended and a neutralizing metal cation is then introduced into the blend,”
pointing to page 51, lines 15-27 of the specification, compared to neutralization prior to blending
(brief, pages 5-6). Appellants further contend more specifically in the reply brief that appealed
“claim 10 is believed to be written in a manner that does not require the components of the blend
to be initially neutralized” as “[e]ach of the components of claim 10 are ‘such that’ a certain
percentage of each of the copolymers are neutralized with the particular metal cations indicated”
in comparison to ionomers that “are neutralized prior to blending with the ethylene copolymer”
(pages 3-4). The examiner points out that the claims do not require polymers that are neutralized
after they have been blended (answer, page 4). Upon carefully considering the claims in light of
both positions, we find no limitation either in appealed claim 10, including the “such that”
language, or in appealed claim 1 that specifies the point at which the neutralization of the acid
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007