Appeal No. 94-3812
Application 07/857,701
Moreover, the submission of the Hoechst Celanese product sheet
does not support appellant's position. Suffice it to say that
the compounds on the product sheet represent neither compounds
as claimed in claims 30 and 34 nor compounds as described at
page 11 of the specification.
We agree with appellant with respect to the recitation in
claim 34 regarding the absence of acryloxy silanes and epoxy
silanes. We find the disclosure at page 5, lines 24 through
30 reasonably conveys to persons of ordinary skill in the art
that at the time appellant filed his application, he
recognized that acryloxy and epoxy silanes were undesirable
because they were not resistant to steam and extended exposure
to moisture. Accordingly, the limitation in claim 34 excluding
them is "described" in the sense of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
We find no merit in the examiner's position with respect
to either the so-called "dangling" valence of the substituent
"-NR -" in claims 30 and 34 or with respect to the value of2
"m" in claims 30 and 34. We consider it to be apparent that6
We note in passing that in claim 34, "m" is defined as6
ranging both from 1.05 to 5.95 and from 1 to 6. Indeed,
after the recitation in claim 34 concerning the absence of
silanes, the values for all the claimed substituents are
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007