Appeal 2007-1900
Application 10/605,858
In reviewing the rejections, we consider the dispositive issues arising
from the contentions in the Brief filed August 29, 2006, the Answer filed
November 29, 2006, and the Reply Brief filed January 29, 2007. For groups
of claims Appellants argue together under a separate heading, we select one
claim as representative and decide the relevant issues based on that claim.
II. DISCUSSION
The Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 21-25, 28, 30, 31 and 33
as anticipated by Galmiche. Appellants present arguments for three groups
of claims. We address each group in turn.
A. Anticipation of Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, and 31
We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, and 31
which Appellants group together in contending that Galmiche does not
anticipate these claims (Br. 17). The dispositive issues arising from the
contentions of the Appellants and the Examiner are:
1. What is the scope of the language “an activator dissolved in a
solvent” as recited in claim 1?
2. Is it reasonable to conclude that the ammonium chloride
activator of Galmiche’s Example 1 is dissolved in the isopropyl
alcohol solvent such that the limitation “an activator dissolved
in a solvent” is met by the mixture of Galmiche?
3. What is the scope of the language “does not contain an
extraneous binder” as further recited in claim 1?
4. Is the surface active agent of Galmiche an extraneous binder?
The first and third questions are questions of claim interpretation.
During examination, "claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013