Appeal No. 2004-0027 Page 5
Application No. 09/513,089
finding that the hydrophilic polyester-polyurethane described by Wilson meets the requirements
of the claim: No omission of the superabsorbent polymer described by Wilson is necessary.
This is because part (f) of claim 5, which allows the inclusion of “adjuvant substances and
additives,” allows for the inclusion of the superabsorbent material described in Wilson (Answer,
p. 5 and pp. 8-9). The real question is, therefore: Is the Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase
“adjuvant substances and additives,” as used in the claim, reasonable? See In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028-29 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We conclude that the Examiner’s interpretation is reasonable in light of the evidence.
“When examining claims for patentability, claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable and
consistent with the specification.” In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006
(Fed. Cir. 2002). In determining that the interpretation is consistent with the specification, the
Examiner points to the discussion in the specification at page 7, lines 25-27. Here the
specification states that:
Other adjuvant substances and additives are optionally added in order to influence
other properties. Examples thereof include flame retardents, emulsifiers,
dispersing agents, adjuvant substances to improve the ease of punching out the
material or antioxidants to prevent discoloration of the core.
This portion of the specification provides no express definition of “adjuvant substances and
additives” nor does it expressly disclaim any ordinary and accustomed meaning of the terms.
The specification merely indicates that adjuvant substances are “added to influence other
properties” and provides some examples of such substances. We note that “adjuvant” is being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007