Appeal 95-4477
Application 08/006,350
17. In Amendment B, applicant states (page 2--which
we note is not numbered):
Furthermore, the amended claims are directed to a
mixture of modified organopolysilixanes [sic--
organopolysiloxanes] A & B in a weight ratio of A:B of
>10:1 to 15:1. By contrast, the Schaefer patent is
restricted to the ratio of from 10:1 to 1:1.[10]
18. At the time Amendment B was filed, applicant's
former practitioner did not state the basis in the
specification, as filed, for the A:B ratio inserted into
claims 1 and 23.
19. The amendment was entered, but the examiner
rejected the claims finding that "[t]he specification does
not provide support for the claimed range of polysiloxanes
A:B ratio (>10:1 - 15:1)." Accordingly, the examiner entered
a rejection of the claims for failure to comply with the
description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. See Final Rejection entered September 26, 1994 (Paper
9, page 2). The examiner also made an obviousness rejection
based, inter alia, on the Schaefer patent.
Applicant's former practitioner's argument is totally disingenuous. It ignores10
the word "about" in the phrase "about >10:1" inserted into claim 1 by Amendment B.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007