Appeal 2007-0650
Application 10/808,264
substituents containing one or more fused aromatic rings.
Alternatively, the radical can be “one or more non-fused aromatic
rings without intervening functional groups.” The only other option
for the “Ar” group is a combination of the two alternatives recited
above. Therefore, where “Ar” includes fused rings, there can be
substituents on the radical. Where “Ar” includes two or more non-
fused rings, there can be no functional groups between the rings.
Where “Ar” is one non-fused ring, the language “no function groups
between the rings” cannot apply.
Importantly, “n” is not limited by the claim. We, therefore,
interpret the claim as allowing n=1. The claim only requires the
presence of one –(–O–Ar–)– structure.
We also note the use of the transitional phrase “comprising.”
The use of “comprising” means that the claim is open to the inclusion
of other structures in addition to the recited –(–O–Ar–)n– structure.
Based on the above analysis of the claims, we determine that
claim 22 encompasses a process of making a polyaromatic ether with
one –(–O–Ar–)– structural group where “Ar” is a single aromatic ring.
We also determine that because the claim uses the transitional phrase
“comprising,” the claim does not exclude carbonyl groups in other
portions of the structure.
Matzner describes polyaromatic ethers meeting the
requirements of claim 22. See, for instance, formula (28) in columns
17 and 18 of Matzner. Formula (28) illustrates a block copolymer
containing –(–O–Ar–)– structural groups wherein “Ar” is a single
aromatic ring, i.e., a phenyl group. While other sections of the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013