Appeal No. 1996-2400
Application 08/245,145
acid) and salts thereof with monovalent cations, would be the same or substantially the same as the
“about 12 to about 14 percent by weight” specified in claim 16. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1254-56, 195 USPQ 430, 432-34 (CCPA 1977).
Accordingly, we reverse this ground of rejection because it is manifest that the only direction to
appellants’ claimed invention as a whole encompassed by claim 16 on the record before us is supplied
by appellants’ own specification.
Turning now to claims 14, 15 and 18, appellants have stated that while these claims remain in
the application, the “[r]ejection of only one claim, claim 16, is being appealed,” but have not withdrawn
the appeal as to these claims (brief, pages 2 and 3). The examiner has rejected claims 14, 15 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Faircloth et al. (Office action of December 13, 1994
(Paper No. 7; pages 2); answer, pages 3 and 4). Accordingly, in the absence of argument by
appellants, we summarily affirm the ground of rejection of claims 14, 15 and 18.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007