Appeal No. 2006-3248 Page 4
Application No. 10/617,585
“functional methacrylate monomers.” The terms “non-functional” and “functional”
are not expressly defined in the specification. However, claims “‘must be read in
view of the specification, of which they are a part.’ …. [T]he specification ‘is
always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2005)(internal citations omitted.)
The “functional” monomers (comprising the crosslinkable component of
claim 1) are described in the specification as having “functional groups” that
mediate the crosslinking reaction that occurs during the curing step. See
specification, page 5, lines 19-24 and page 7, lines 4-7. The skilled artisan, upon
reading the specification, would understand that the crosslinking occurs via these
functional groups. See id., page 5, lines 1-10 and 20-24. Thus, we interpret the
phrase “functional methacrylate monomers” to refer to the presence of the
functional crosslinkable groups which are crosslinked with the “crosslinking
component.” Along these same lines, the phrase “non-functional acrylate
monomers” is construed to refer to acrylate monomers that lack functional
crosslinkable groups. Stated differently, the non-functional acrylate monomers
will not be crosslinked by the crosslinking component of the composition.
Indefiniteness
Claim 5 stands rejected under §112, second paragraph, as being ndefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject which Appellant
regards as the invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007