Appeal No. 2006-2680
Application No. 10/710,187
SUMMARY
Because a preponderance of the evidence shows that one skilled in the
art would not have interpreted the term “polyetherimide” to encompass the
polyetherimide esters in the compositions of Liu ‘380 and ‘765, we reverse
the anticipation rejections of claims 1-3 and 8-12. Because the Liu patents
do not teach or suggest the use of a “polyetherimide,” as one skilled in the
art would interpret that term, in the composition recited in claim 4, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of that claim.
REVERSED
DEMETRA J. MILLS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LORA M. GREEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013