Appeal 2006-2380
Application 10/791,079
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
The issues presented by this appeal are as follows: (1) whether the
claim phrase “a polymeric binder” may properly be construed to include
Gardner’s mixture of thermoplastic-thermoset binders, and, if so, (2)
whether the claimed weight percent of the polymeric binder (i.e., “about
1.25 to about 2.25 percent by weight”) would have been obvious from
Gardner’s disclosure.
Generally, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science
Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Additionally, it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to
develop workable or even optimum ranges for such art-recognized, result-
effective parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d
1934, 1936-1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205
USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ
233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the Examiner construes the claim phrase, “a
polymeric binder” as inclusive of a mixture of binders wherein the weight
percent of any one binder in the mixture may be used to satisfy the claimed
polymeric binder range (Answer 6). The Examiner’s claim construction is
supported by Appellants’ disclosure in their Specification that the polymeric
binder may be “thermoplastics, thermosets, or a combination thereof”
(Specification 12: 29-30). Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s claim
construction of the phrase “a polymeric binder” to be reasonable. American
Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d at 1369, 70 USPQ2d at 1834.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013