Appeal 2006-2523
Application 10/206,496
argued by Appellants and representative of the grounds of rejection.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
OPINION
In order to review the Examiner’s application of prior art to the
appealed claims, we first interpret claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 16, and 19 by giving the
terms thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage
in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in
light of the written description in the Specification unless another meaning is
intended by Appellants as established therein, and without reading into the
claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1666-67
(Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We determine representative claim 1 encompasses methods of
polymerizing any manner of metallic precursors in any manner of solution to
form contiguous films of any manner of metal oxides on any manner of
substrate particles. The methods comprise at least the steps of (1) providing
a reaction solution comprising at least any amount of ethanol, any amount of
any manner of phosphates, and any amount of any manner of metallic
precursors which can participate in the polymerization; (2) adding any
manner of metal substrate particles which can be suspended in solution;
(3) adding any amount of “alcohols,” that is, at least two “alcohols,” which
have three to seven carbon atoms, at least to the extent that “the boiling point
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013