Appeal No. 94-1549
Application 07/945,540
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A nail polish remover consisting essentially of: (a) about 25 to 95% glycol
ether ester; and (b) about 5 to 75% glycol ether.
2. The nail polish remover of claim 1 additionally comprising: (c) about 5 to 40%
water.
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Durham 4,948,697 Aug. 14, 1990
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Durham. Claims 5 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 2 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit
the subject matter of a previous claim.
We affirm-in-part the prior art rejection, reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, and affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph.
Prior Art Rejection
As seen from claim 1 on appeal, the claimed invention involves a nail polish
remover which consists essentially of about 25-95% glycol ether ester and 5-75%
glycol ether. That composition is further modified by claim 2 as “additionally
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007