Ex parte KAPUSCINSKI et al. - Page 8




                Appeal No. 95-3070                                                                                                       
                Application 07/907,078                                                                                                   

                examiner stated that                                                                                                     

                        the terms “pendant functional groups”, “their derivatives” (claim 3, line 2) and “aromatic                       
                        amine antioxidant” fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.  One                       
                        having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the limits and bounds of a                       
                        claim containing the above terms.  Especially when considered in view of the phrase “which                       
                        forms synergistic antioxidant composition” (claim 1, line 2) and the total lack of a definition                  
                        as to what constitutes a synergistic antioxidant composition, i.e., 10% improvement, 50%                         
                        improvement, 100%improve-ment [sic], or some other, [sic] undefined amount? [sic]                                
                        [Answer: p. 7.]                                                                                                  

                        We will not sustain this rejection.  The examiner has not explained why one having ordinary skill                

                in the art would find the expression “which forms synergistic antioxidant composition” indefinite.  The term             

                synergism means the “action of two or more substances ... to achieve an effect of which each is individually             
                incapable.”    Since according to appellants the two claimed antioxidant groups achieve a synergistic effect2                                                                                                             

                when on the same polymer backbone, the expression could only mean that the two groups combined form                      

                a polymer which has greater antioxidant properties than each group alone on the same polymer backbone.                   

                Thus, we do not find that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the expression indefinite.               

                The examiner asserts that the phrases “pendent functional groups,” “their derivatives” and “aromatic amine               

                antioxidant” are indefinite.  The examiner’s reason for objecting to these phrases is a conclusionary.  He               

                has not explained how he arrived at this conclusion, i.e. why a person having ordinary skill in the art would            

                not be able to ascertain the limits and bounds of the claims containing the objected to phrases.                         

                        The legal standard for indefiniteness under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether                   

                        The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass., page2                                                                                                               
                1233 (1982).                                                                                                             
                                                                   8                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007