Appeal No. 2003-2157
Application No. 09/885,311
segments of A and segments of B monomer occurring along the polymer
chain, the segments containing a random number of repeat units with
each occurrence.” The specification, as amended at page 14, l.22-
page 15, l. 21, teaches that a random copolymer may have “segments
resembling a ‘pure block’ or a ‘pure alternating’ copolymer”
depending upon the conditions under which it was polymerized,
contributing to the “blocky” or “alternating” character of the
random copolymer. Contrary to appellants’ interpretation (Brief,
page 3), these definitions and guidelines in the specification do
not limit the term “random copolymer” to a “classic random
copolymer” (Brief, page 3) or a “true random” copolymer (Brief,
page 7). Giving the term “random copolymer” its broadest
reasonable interpretation as read in light of the specification and
as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art (including
Crystal), we interpret this contested language to include any
random copolymer, including types with “blocky” or “alternating”
character or higher concentration of one component at either end of
the copolymer.
In view of our claim interpretation, appellants’ arguments
regarding claim construction are not persuasive (Brief, pages 5-6).
Similarly, appellants’ argument that Crystal is not “pertinent”
since the “shaded copolymer” of Crystal could not be suggestive of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007