Ex Parte Miyake et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2005-1402                                                                     4               
             Application No. 10/403,021                                                                               


                    Appellants' claimed substance in water, as in claims 3 and 4, is defined as 10                    
                    g or more per 100 g of water.                                                                     
                    The examiner agrees that “grams solute per 100 grams solvent” is a known and                      
             often expressed measurement of the solubility of a solute.  However, the examiner points                 
             out that there are other reasonable definitions of “solubility,” such as grams per liter, and            
             relies on a definition of “molar solubility” in Hackh's Chemical Dictionary for support (copy            
             attached).  The examiner argues that a term in a claim cannot be construed to have one                   
             particular meaning where there is more than one reasonable meaning.  Thus, the                           
             examiner concludes that the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                          
             paragraph, since there is more than one reasonable meaning of “solubility.”  Answer, p. 3.               
                    In response, appellants argue that (Reply brief, p. 5):                                           
                    [T]he mere existence of other ways to calculate solubility does not                               
                    necessarily make the claim language "solubility in water of 10 g or more"                         
                    indefinite.  For example, in Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. United                         
                    States, 46 Fed. Cl. 278, 291, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1519 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2000), the                         
                    defendants presented testimony that there were at least four ways to define                       
                    the claim term "average diameter." . . .  However, the court held that such                       
                    evidence did not establish that one skilled in the art would not understand                       
                    how to calculate the average diameter.                                                            
                    In Exxon,4 the defendant argued that the term "average diameter" is indefinite and,               
             for support, offered testimony to establish that there are at least four possible definitions of         
             the term.  The defendant argued that each definition produces a different value, and a                   

                    4We note that Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 278,               
             54 USPQ2d 1519 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2000), is not binding precedent on the Board of Patent Appeals and          
             Interferences.  Nevertheless, we have distinguished the facts in Exxon from the facts in the case on     
             appeal.                                                                                                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007