Appeal 2007-0158
Application 10/415,202
2005)(citing, inter alia, In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 181, 126 USPQ 242,
251 (CCPA 1960) (“The descriptions in patents are not addressed to the
public generally, to lawyers or to judges, but, as section 112 says, to those
skilled in the art to which the invention pertains or with which it is most
nearly connected.”)). Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the term “powder coating material” as referring to a
“solid, particulated coating material having a plurality of components in
admixture in each particle” (Br. 4-5). By contrast, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand the term “solid epoxy resin” as referring to
particles containing an epoxy resin and nothing more (Reply 2).
Appellant relies on the Specification as evidence that the terms
“powder coating materials” and “solid epoxy resins” clearly designate two
different types of materials. Appellant points out that the Specification
references separate publications for examples of suitable solid epoxy resins
and powder coating materials for use in the invention (Br. 2). See
Specification 5:13-6:3. Appellant also notes that the Specification states that
the epoxy resin powder coating material generally includes from 40 up to
80% by weight of epoxy resin and, therefore, necessarily includes materials
other than epoxy resin (Br. 2). See Findings of Fact 5, 6, and 7. Appellant
further relies on Goldschmidt as evidence that "powder coating" is a term of
the coating arts that refers to a mixture of coating materials that is
homogenized in a melt, then solidified and granulated (Br. 4) to produce
particles of the powder material, each of which includes epoxy resin as well
as other additives (see Reply 2-3).
We find Appellant’s arguments and evidence persuasive in
establishing that the claim term “powder coating material” is properly
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013