Ex parte DARR et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 95-0353                                                          
          Application 07/837,241                                                      

          The examiner’s reasoning for the rejection appears to be based on           
          indefiniteness, and not on an inadequate disclosure.  In either             
          event, we find that the examiner has not presented sufficient               
          reasoning or objective evidence to support a rejection on either            
          ground.  While it is not clear whether “Blue White PE MB” is a              
          trademark, it is an example of a product containing titanium                
          dioxide which can be used as an opacifier in the opaque plastic             
          layer.  The same is true for “21249-R11G” which appears to be a             
          product code for an orange pigment which can be employed in the             
          plastic pigment layer.  We find appellants’ descriptions of these           
          products on page 5, lines 19-30 of the specification to be                  
          adequate to convey to the skilled artisan, by way of example, the           
          types of pigments and opacifiers that can be used in practicing             
          the disclosed invention.  We find nothing in the examiner’s                 
          reasoning to persuade us that a person skilled in the art would             
          find the descriptions indefinite or ambiguous.  For the foregoing           
          reasons, the examiner’s rejection is reversed.                              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007