Appeal 20072907
Application 10644791
so we select claim 1 as representative.2 Claim 1 defines the subject matter of
the invention as follows:3
1. A flame retardant molding composition
substantially free of halogen, phosphorous and antimony,
comprising:
an epoxy resin;
melamine cyanurate; and
a transition metal oxide of a Group VIA element.
A claim before the Office is given its broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification.4 The meaning of "substantially free" varies
with context.5 If an applicant wishes to be more restrictive, other terms of
art are available such as "essentially free".6 Indeed, Henkel describes the
composition on appeal as "[t]ypically…essentially free of bromine and
antimony compounds."7 By contrast, Henkel teaches the use of small
amounts of triphenylphosphine (TPP) as a catalyst.8 This distinction makes
sense in terms of the problem to be solved since halogens and antimony
present safety hazards,9 while phosphorous compounds—when used in
2 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3 Br. 12.
4 In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., App. No. 2006-1573, slip op. at 5 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
5 Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp., Inc., 249 F.3d 1341,
1346-47, 58 USPQ2d 1737, 1740-41 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (construing
"substantially free" to include "less than 5%").
6 Glaxo Grp., Ltd. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc., 262 F.3d 1333, 1336,
59 USPQ2d 1950, 1952 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (contrasting "substantially" in a
parent claim with "essentially free" in a dependent claim).
7 Specification (Spec.) ¶0015. We note that bromine is a halogen.
8 Spec. ¶¶0028 and 0031; Tables 1A and 2A.
9 Spec. ¶0004.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013