Appeal 2007-2201
Application 10/613,735
remove non-aqueous solvent from the system, and
evaporating the non-aqueous solvent into solvent vapor by
passing the substrate with remaining chemical mixture by
and against an evaporator apparatus, where the evaporator
operates as a heat plate to evaporate non-aqueous solvent
(Answer 5-6; see Wedler, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 56-68; col. 2,
l. 69-col. 3, l. 15; col. 3, ll. 49-53; col. 4, ll. 12-20 and 32-
54; and col. 5, ll. 6-11 and 49-60).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, anticipation requires that the prior art
reference disclose, either expressly or under the principles of inherency,
every limitation of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Implicit in our review of the
Examiner’s anticipation analysis is that the claim must first have been
correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of each contested
limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d
1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During ex parte prosecution, the Patent Office
should apply to the verbiage of the claims the broadest reasonable meaning
of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any enlightenment by way of
definition or otherwise afforded by the original disclosure. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The only contested limitation from the claim language is in regard to
“passing” the substrate with remaining chemical mixture “by and against” an
evaporator apparatus (Br. 10; Answer 16-19). The Examiner and Appellant
agree that Wedler discloses that the substrate is “against” or in contact with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013