Ex Parte Robeson et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-2910                                                                             
                Application 10/304,881                                                                       
           1    improved.  Moreover, the opening prepositional phrase "In a surface…"                        
           2    raises more questions since the body of the claim appears to modify a water-                 
           3    based paint composition applied to (i.e., "on") the surface rather than                      
           4    something in the previously painted surface.                                                 
           5          We note that all of the dependent claims begin "The surface…",                         
           6    which suggests that the surface is the direct object of claim 16 from which                  
           7    they all ultimately depend.  The improvement also "comprises a water-based                   
           8    paint composition applied thereto", where the "thereto" can only refer to                    
           9    either the surface or the improvement, the latter of which would be obscure                  
          10    to say the least.  We would thus read the beginning of claim 16 as "A surface                
          11    previously coated with a paint composition, wherein the improvement                          
          12    comprises…".  One problem with this approach is that it is not our office to                 
          13    rewrite claims to mean what we think the applicant intended;6 rather it is the               
          14    responsibility of the applicant to define the invention precisely.7                          
          15          The rules specifically provide for claims to be written in                             
          16    "improvement" format, in which case it is understood that the preamble                       
          17    states the prior art and the improvement states the differences from the prior               
          18    art.8  Since Air Products has employed the improvement format, we must                       
          19    construe paint-coated surfaces to have been conventional in the art.                         
          20          The "improvement" part of the claim presents further problems in as                    
          21    much as many of the limitations listed as improvements also appear to be                     
                                                                                                            
                6 Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374, 69 USPQ2d                        
                1857, 1859 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (a tribunal "may not redraft claims, whether to                  
                make them operable or to sustain their validity").                                           
                7 35 U.S.C. § 112(1); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023,                     
                1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                                                       
                8 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(e); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550,                      
                1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  This format is sometimes called "Jepson" format.                     
                                                     3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013