Appeal 2007-2062
Application 10/360,263
Accordingly, as we construe the claim limitation and the disclosure of
Schneider (see factual findings (1) and (2) listed above), the range of the
reference overlaps with the claimed range. However, here we need not look
at the degree of overlap and specificity of the disclosure since Schneider
discloses an embodiment, including specific examples, of “nanoparticles”
with sizes directly within the range specified for the particles in claim 1 on
appeal (see factual findings (5), (6), and (7) listed above). Disclosure of an
example within the range specified in the claims is an anticipation of that
claim. See In re Wertheim, supra. We also note that the Examples of
Schneider (see factual finding (7) listed above) disclose amounts of the
particles that are within the disclosed amounts used by Appellants
(Specification 16). We determine that it reasonably appears that the
particles in the Examples of Schneider discussed above do not contain OH
groups on the surface of the particle. Although Appellants aver that these
particles do contain OH groups on the particle surface (Br. 4; see footnote
1), we note that there is no evidence in this record that supports this
statement. Additionally, we determine that the term “substantially free of
[hydroxyl] functional groups” has not been defined in the Specification (see
the Specification:17). Therefore, we give the broadest reasonable
interpretation to the word “substantially,” which means “being largely but
not wholly that which is specified.”5 Appellants’ statement that the particles
of Schneider contain surface OH groups does not address the quantity of any
OH groups.
5 See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1161, G. & C. Merriam Co.,
Springfield, Mass., 1977.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013