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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007