Appeal No. 2003-0850
Application No. 09/334,366
The principal argument advanced by appellant in traversing this ground of
rejection is that Garst ‘078 fails to disclose a “composite” dispersing agent. See appeal
brief, pages 3-4. According to appellant, Garst’s disclosure of a product formed by
combining solid-state forms of individual compounds and then granulating them
together is not the same as, or equivalent to, the claimed “composite” dispersing agent.
See id. Rather, the term “‘composite’ dispersing agent” is limited to a solid product
formed by mixing aqueous alkyl polyglycoside and polymeric anionic dispersant
compounds followed by drying the mixture. Id.
The examiner maintains that the dictionary defines a composite as “composed of
a mixture or combination of two or more microconstituents or macroconstituents that
differ in form and chemical composition, and are essentially insoluble in each other.”
Examiner’s answer, paper no. 18, mailed March 11, 2002, page 7. Thus, it is the
examiner’s contention that although Garst ‘078 does not use the word “composite”, his
teaching of forming a composition by dry blending and milling Agrimul PG 2069 with
calcium lignosulfonate achieves a “composite” dispersing agent as claimed. See id.,
page 3.
During patent prosecution, claims are given their broadest interpretation
consistent with the specification. See, In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222
USPQ 934, 936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The present specification states as follows:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007