Appeal No. 2003-1266
Application No. 09/735,054
Reed ‘453 in view of Yatka; claims 1-5, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 17
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hopkins in view of
Reed ‘453, Reed ‘508 or Reed ‘406; and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Hopkins in view of Reed ‘453, Reed ‘508 or
Reed ‘406, further in view of Yatka.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, second
paragraph, and 102(b), and affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Rejection of claims 1-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner argues that claims 1-5 “are indefinite since it
is not known what is intended by ‘essentially’ no glycerin
(claim 1, line 3)” (office action mailed August 10, 2001,
paper no. 3, page 2).
Page 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007