Appeal No. 2004-0770
Application No. 09/795,310
inherency, every limitation of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Implicit in our
review of the examiner’s anticipation analysis is that the claim
must first have been correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116
F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner has construed claim 1 on appeal as open to
include other components such as isotactic polypropylene, as long
as the recited components are present in the required percentages
(Answer, pages 5-6). Appellants contest this claim construction
and argue that the claims are limited by the phrase “totaling 100%
by weight” as recited at the end of claim 1 on appeal. Appellants
would construe claim 1 on appeal as including only two components
which make up 100% of the total polymers (Brief, pages 5 and 6;
Reply Brief, page 5), and argue that claim 1 does not include
isotactic polypropylene (Brief, page 7; Reply Brief, page 6).
It is undisputed that claim 1 on appeal recites the
transitional term “comprising” (Answer, page 5; Reply Brief, page
5). It is well settled that the transitional term “comprising”
used in claim language is a “term of art ... which means that the
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and
still form a construct within the scope of the claims.” Genentech
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007