Appeal 2006-1306
Application 10/218,991
The Examiner rejects claim 32 under § 102(b) over Reed.
Appellants argue that Reed does not “teach or suggest the use of
molten polyol” (Br. 9). Appellants also make the same arguments made
above regarding claim 1 (i.e., “molten polyol” is defined in the specification,
the plain meaning of “molten” would indicate that Reed does not apply, and
claim differentiation). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants only argue in their Brief and Reply Brief that Reed does
not disclose “molten polyol” (Br. 9, Reply Br. 2-4). However, claim 32 does
not recite “molten polyol” anywhere in the claim. In fact, claim 32 more
broadly recites “. . . liquefying at least one polyol and at least one non-polyol
by heating . . . .” Appellants do not argue in either their Brief or Reply Brief
that “liquefying at least one polyol” is synonymous with “molten polyol.”
Appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief are silent regarding the “liquefying”
feature of claim 32.
During examination claim language is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation that is consistent with the specification. Morris, 127 F.3d at
1054, 44 USPQ2d at 1027. Additionally, a specification is examined for
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise it may provide to
construing claim language. Id. When interpreting a claim, the specification
is usually the single best guide to the meaning of disputed claim language.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315, 1321, 75 USPQ2d at 1327, 1332.
An inspection of Appellants’ Specification for a definition of
“liquefying” reveals that no definition is provided. Appellants have not
restricted the definition of “liquefying at least one polyol . . . by heating” to
only forming a “molten polyol.” Rather, giving “liquefying” its broadest
reasonable interpretation, such language encompasses heated solutions of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007