Appeal 2006-3166
Application 09/843,582
term “chemically bond.” Appellants have not provided a special definition
of “chemically bond” in their Specification which would govern our
construction of that claim term. Since “chemically bond” is not restricted by
a definition provided by Appellants, the Examiner reasonably interpreted
“chemically bond” to include the metal scavenging capability of the
“cationic PVA and host PVA” disclosed by Andros. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1316, 75 USPQ2d at 1329.
As evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation of “chemically bond”
is reasonable, we find Appellants disclose the complexing agent may be a
chelating reagent (Specification 3: 30-31) and Andros discloses the host
PVA and cationic PVA act as chelating agents in removing the metal
particles (col. 12, ll. 58-60). These disclosures reveal that Andros’ binding
of the metal particles with the cationic or host PVA removes the metal
particles (i.e., bonding them to the cationic or host PVA) in the same fashion
as Appellants’ chelating reagent, complexing agent. Therefore, the
Examiner reasonably determined that Andros’ cationic and host PVA
“chemically bond” the metal particles to remove them from the substrate
surface as claimed by Appellants.
Accordingly, we find that Andros discloses a complexing agent (i.e.,
polyethylenimine) that “chemically bond[s]” to metal particles. Since
Appellants’ only argued distinction is disclosed by Andros, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013