Appeal No. 2006-1676
Application No. 10/384,882
base (Example V2). From the foregoing written description in
the specification, we find that Appellants manifestly and
unequivocally disavow that the claimed b2 reaction product
includes alkoxylated Mannich bases.
The Examiner in his answer states that the non-alkoxylated
Mannich base limitation argued by Appellants in their brief is
not present in the claims. The Examiner also states that the
claims only require that the b2 reaction product be formed from
a compound containing an aromatic ring, an aldehyde or ketone,
and a primary or secondary amine. However, the Examiner’s
broadest interpretation of the claim language must be reasonable
and consistent with what Appellants have disclosed in their
specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054, 44 USPQ2d at
1027. Moreover, here Appellants have made clear that
alkoxylated Mannich bases are not part of their invention, so
such alkoxylated Mannich bases are outside of their invention,
even though their claims read without reference to their
specification may be considered broad enough to encompass
alkoxylated Mannich bases. See SciMed Life Sys. v. Advance
Cardiovascular Sys., 242 F.3d at 1341, 58 USPQ2d at 1062-63. In
view of Appellants’ clear disclaimer of using alkoxylated
Mannich bases with their foam or polyol composition, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007