Appeal No. 97-2089
Application No. 08/097,801
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
discussion by the appellants and the examiner respectively of
their contrary viewpoints concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain this
rejection.
The only arguments advanced by the appellants in their
brief concern (1) the “consisting essentially of” language of
method claim 13 and (2) the lack of motivation in Alexander
for deleting compounds from patentee’s antifoaming
composition. As correctly indicated by the examiner on page 6
of the answer, however, neither of these arguments is relevant
to the concentrate claims on appeal. More specifically, the
concentrate claims employ the expression “contains” (rather
than the “consisting essentially of” language of method claim
13) and accordingly do not exclude any of the compounds which
make up Alexander’s antifoaming composition.
Under these circumstances, it is clear that the
examiner’s section 103 rejection of concentrate claims 16
concentrate claims 16 through 21.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007