Appeal No. 94-4487
Application No. 08/006,021
However, we fully concur with the examiner that the subject
matter of claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 15 and 16 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer.
We consider first the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. We do not agree with the examiner that
the amendment to the specification changing "dilute aqueous
solution" to "dilute solution" introduces new matter. Rather, we
agree with appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the entirety of the original specification, would readily
understand that the amended language "dilute solution" refers to
an aqueous solution.
We also do not concur with the examiner that amending the
language "consisting essentially of" at pages 3 and 4 of the
specification to read "comprising" is new matter. The original
specification, at page 3, lines 28-29, discloses that the object
of the invention involves a stabilization method "comprising
introducing about 0.1 to 5% by weight based on said solution, of
a ferric salt." The term "comprising" provides original
descriptive support for the amendment inasmuch as appellant's
inventive method "comprises" introducing a ferric salt into a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007