{"id":1826,"date":"2017-10-11T14:37:59","date_gmt":"2017-10-11T18:37:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1826"},"modified":"2017-11-25T11:17:35","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T16:17:35","slug":"ungrammatical-language-not-ambiguous-in-view-of-specification-as-a-whole","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1826","title":{"rendered":"Ungrammatical Language Not Ambiguous in View of Specification as a Whole"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co.<\/a>, [2015-1983, 2015-2001] (October 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit\u00a0 affirmed the PTAB decisions in\u00a0IPR2014-00185 and IPR2014-00350, sustaining the patentability of the challenged claims of\u00a0U.S Patent Nos. 6,020,435 and\u00a06,252,004, respectively.<\/p>\n

The patents\u00a0are directed to\u00a0processes for preparing certain emulsion polymers having\u00a0improved opacity.\u00a0\u00a0In the claimed processes a base swelling agent and\u00a0excess monomer are introduced into an aqueous emulsion\u00a0of the polymer, under conditions in which there is no
\nsubstantial polymerization.\u00a0 At issue was was the meaning of “swelling agent” which the PTAB construed as\u00a0not merely as being capable of permeating\u00a0a shell and swelling the core of a multistage emulsion
\npolymer in the abstract, but specifically under the conditions\u00a0of the specific process for which the agent is to be\u00a0used.\u00a0 Organik argued that this improperly limited the term \u201cswelling agent\u201d\u00a0in a manner that inappropriately distinguished the prior\u00a0art.<\/p>\n

Organik argued that the specification was ambiguous in describing the swelling agent:<\/p>\n

Suitable swelling agents include, are those\u00a0which<\/strong>, in the presence of the multistage emulsion\u00a0polymer and monomer, are capable of permeating\u00a0the shell and swelling the core. Swelling agents\u00a0may be aqueous or gaseous, volatile or fixed bases\u00a0or combinations thereof.<\/p>\n

and that the PTAB improperly adopted the narrower construction.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that the Board did not find the language ambiguous, and agreed with the Board.\u00a0 Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board\u2019s construction\u00a0cannot be divorced from the specification and\u00a0the record evidence, and must be consistent with the one
\nthat those skilled in the art would reach.<\/p>\n

The Board found that the prior art asserted by Organik lacked the swelling agent as that term was used in the claims.\u00a0 Organik argued the one example in a reference, inherently showed a swelling agent, but Rohm and Haas provided experimental evidence through expert testimony\u00a0 that it did not.\u00a0 While Organik contested this evidence, the Board noted that Organik neither provided its own evidence, or showed how different experiments would have yielded different data.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit found that Board concluded that neither Toda nor Touda\u00a0discloses or suggests a \u201cswelling agent\u201d as required by the
\n\u2019435 and \u2019004 Patents, and that the Board\u2019s decisions are in accordance
\nwith law and supported by substantial evidence\u00a0in the record, and are affirmed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co., [2015-1983, 2015-2001] (October 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit\u00a0 affirmed the PTAB decisions in\u00a0IPR2014-00185 and IPR2014-00350, sustaining the patentability of the challenged claims of\u00a0U.S Patent Nos. 6,020,435 and\u00a06,252,004, respectively. The patents\u00a0are directed … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,26,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-inter-partes-review","category-obviousness"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1826","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1826"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1826\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1828,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1826\/revisions\/1828"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}