Appeal 2007-3548
Application 10/627,947
To properly address the issue before us, we must analyze the claim
language to determine the scope and meaning of each contested limitation.
See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032
(Fed. Cir. 1997). In so doing, we give the terms of the appealed claims their
ordinary meaning unless we find that another meaning is intended by
Appellants.
By virtue of using the transitional language “comprising,” the claimed
invention does not preclude the presence of additional components in the
polymerization. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802
(CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is
propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term ‘comprises’
permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”).
In several of the claims Appellants utilize the term “approximately” to
describe the specified pH ranges. The present Specification provides no
guidance into the amount of latitude that should be attributed to the range
due to the “approximately” claim language. We interpret the claim language
to allow for some variation from the stated end point of the range.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness for the independent claims 1, 28, 30, 33, and
34. The obviousness rejection has not been adequately rebutted by
Appellants’ arguments. We will address Appellants’ arguments
substantially in the order as presented in the principal Brief.
Appellants contend that the paragraph of Gruden, bridging pages 122-
123, is “exclusively limited to the context of removing heavy metal in an
anaerobic digester” (Br. 8). Appellants contend that it is only through a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013