Appeal No. 1996-2357
Application 08/124,617
the claims with respect to the scope of the claims. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).
For the reason discussed above, we consider appellants’
claim 3 and claims 5, 6, 9 and 10 which depend therefrom and
do not remedy the deficiency in claim 3 discussed above, to be
sufficiently indefinite that application of Bögemann to the
claims is not possible. On this basis, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bögemann, alone or in
view of Fujii. It should be understood that this reversal is
not a reversal on the merits of the rejection but, rather, is
a procedural reversal predicated upon the indefiniteness of
the claims.
Claims 4, 7 and 8, however, recite a Markush group of
species within the generic formula recited in claim 3. The
examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent, why
Bögemann,
alone or with Fujii, would have fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art a vulcanizable rubber composition
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007