Appeal 2007-2371
Application 10/426,654
Rather, the Specification states that “[w]hen the acrylic polymer and
lecithin are combined, a matrix or net-like structure is formed”
(Specification 12, ¶ [0055]), and that “there exists a physical and/or
chemical affinity between lecithin and polymer. This affinity or association
appears as a matrix, or net-like structure” (id. at 12, ¶ [0056]). Thus, when
the Specification discusses the term “matrix,” it does so without any
qualifications regarding its method of preparation, other than the
combination of the two claimed ingredients.
Appellant argues that the “very general statement [in ¶ [0055] of the
Specification] about making the adjuvant clearly should not be taken to
mean that any combining of lecithin and acrylic polymer results in the
formation of a matrix or net-like structure” (Br. 12). Appellant argues that
“[t]he instant specification describes a preparation method which will
produce such a matrix structure which includes hydrating the lecithin and
polymer together and then mixing the two, and as discussed above, the
mixing of lecithin and acrylic polymer provided b[y] Anselem will not
produce the claimed adjuvant” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant in effect seeks to
limit claim 1’s “matrix” to a structure resulting from a specific process, such
as that presented in the Examples. However, it is well settled that
“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[W]hile it is true that
claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013