Appeal 2007-1693
Application 10/343,523
(Fed. Cir. 1997). In so doing, we give the terms of the appealed claims their
ordinary meaning unless we find that another meaning is intended by
Appellant. The preamble of the claim 1 specifies “[a] process for preparing
pressure-sensitively adhesive polyacrylates . . . .” The Specification does
not contain a particular definition for the phrase “pressure sensitively
adhesive.” The Specification discloses the use of the free radically
polymerized copolymers in pressure sensitive adhesives (Specification 2-3).
Thus, we interpret the subject matter of the claimed invention to be a process
for producing polyacrylate polymers. This interpretation of the claim
language in question is consistent with the requirement that the claims of the
application be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification as they would be construed by one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983).1
By virtue of using the transitional language “comprising” in the
claimed invention does not preclude the presence of additional components
in the polymerization. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795,
802-03 (CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is
propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term ‘comprises’
permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”).
The claimed invention discloses the polyacrylate is formed by “free-
radical addition polymerization.” This language permits the claim to
1 We note that Appellants agree with our interpretation of the claimed
subject matter. Specifically in arguing the patentability of the claimed
subject matter Appellants state “[t]he product produced in accordance with
Appellants’ claim 1, by contrast is a polyacrylate” (Br. 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013