Appeal No. 2003-0757
Application No. 09/849,884
to appellant’s request for the Board to indicate why it considers
the ratio calculation must include the presence of a solvent
(Request, page 4), we determine that the ratio calculation may be
calculated in the presence or absence of a solvent, thus yielding
two different ratios. The specific basis for any calculations
has not been established in the original disclosure.
Appellant submits that on page 6 of the Decision the Board
states that different thicknesses of the two layers could produce
varying required concentrations of absorbers different than the
claimed one-fifth ratio (Request, page 2). Appellant argues that
such concentrations would be outside the scope of the invention
as presently claimed and the Board’s conclusion is entirely
speculative (Request, page 3). Appellant also argues that the
Board has misconstrued the invention as applying to broad classes
of absorbers (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. This merits panel
of the Board is not speculating on ratios of absorbers that would
be operative. The Decision was merely establishing that
appellant’s support for the claimed ratio was limited to examples
which are directed to specific ultraviolet absorbers with a
specific film thickness (Decision, page 6). Example 1 on page 10
of the specification is limited to Tinuvin 328 as the ultraviolet
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007