Appeal No. 2003-1912
Serial No. 09/436,440
appellants would have us read the recited temperature limitations
in a way which would preclude that possibility.
In our view, the appellants’ construction represents a more
reasonable interpretation of the claims for two reasons. First
of all, the A and B blocks are set out as two distinct
constituents and, therefore, presumably represent distinct
chemical entities. Second, and more significantly, appellants’
claim construction is consistent with their specification,
whereas the examiner’s is not. Specifically, the specification
(p. 6, ll. 15-18) indicates that the B blocks are amorphous “at
temperatures down to about -20oC”; whereas the A blocks are
crystalline “at temperatures below about 60oC”.
Thus, according to the specification, B blocks must be
amorphous at all temperatures above about -20oC; whereas A blocks
must be crystalline at all temperatures below about 60oC.
Therefore, to be consistent with the specification, the
temperature limitations recited in the claims must be read as
requiring that the A and B blocks be distinct in terms of their
mutually exclusive transition temperatures.
Turning to the double patenting rejection, we find that the
examiner has failed to provide any evidentiary material or a
sound technical basis to support a conclusion that the use of a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007