Appeal No. 2004-0770
Application No. 09/795,310
Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). See also Vehicular Techs. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc.,
212 F.3d 1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d 1841, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As
noted above, appellants argue that the claimed phrase “totaling
100% by weight” limits the open construction normally given to
“comprising” (Reply Brief, page 5). However, the examiner must
give this claimed phrase the broadest reasonable meaning in its
ordinary usage as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account whatever enlightenment afforded by the written
description contained in the specification. See In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The phrase “totaling 100% by weight” may be found at least on
page 5, last two lines, and page 6, line 17, of the specification.
Appellants have not identified any definition of this phrase but
teach that the polypropylene composition of the invention comprises
elastomeric polypropylene and atactic polypropylene “in a specified
ratio” (specification, page 1, lines 8-9, and page 5, lines 11-13).
Appellants teach that many types of additives, including “other
various synthetic resins,” may be incorporated into the inventive
composition (specification, paragraph bridging pages 21-22, and
page 32, first full paragraph). Appellants have not identified,
and we cannot find, any disclosure in the specification that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007