Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we sustain each of
these rejections.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C § 103(a) OVER WATANABE AND
DAUGHENBAUGH
Claims 1, 3-9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Daughenbaugh.
We first address independent claim 1.
We note that independent claim 1 recites a hot melt adhesive
formulation comprising “an ethylene copolymer having a high polar
content” and “an ethylene copolymer having a low polar content.” On this
record, neither the Appellants nor the Examiner have offered an express
interpretation of “high polar content” and “low polar content.”
During prosecution, we generally give the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation "in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, when the claim terms lack clarity on their face, we resort to the
specification to determine their meaning. Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
288 F.3d 1359, 1365-67, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662-64 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (When
the claim term chosen by a patent applicant deprives a claim of clarity, one
must resort to other intrinsic evidence of a definite meaning.); Seatttle Box
Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crafting & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826,
221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(“When a word of degree is used the
district court must determine whether the patent’s specification provides
some standard for measuring that degree.”).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013