Appeal No. 95-2976
Application No. 08/041,077
groupings in the above noted rejections; see page 5 of the
brief and 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993). Accordingly, in our
assessment of the prior art rejection before us, we will focus
upon independent claims 4 and 16 (the sole independent claims
on appeal) with which all other rejected claims will stand or
fall.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the above
noted prior art rejections but not the section 112, second
paragraph, rejection.
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner expresses his
section 112, second paragraph, position in the following
manner;
Degradable organic and polymeric are indefinite
terms, as is "derivative" without specification of
type i.e. - ester, etc. Claim 9; or terms do not
clearly modify polyether diamine. Claim 10 is not
clear as to the Markush species - are all
polyesters?
It is well settled that the definiteness of claim
language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum but, always in
light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular
application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one
possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007