Appeal No. 95-4934
Application 07/908,650
1988). When so interpreted, the claims under rejection
encompass as a “stable” emulsion pursuant to claims 10 and 15
an emulsion of the type formed by Horibe’s Example 3
composition even though this Example 3 emulsion is temporary
rather than permanent. We will not further burden the record
of this application by reiterating the logical rationale well
expressed by the examiner in support of this view.
It is appropriate, however, to comment upon the
appellant’s apparent belief that the claim term “stable”
should be interpreted as meaning “not changing or fluctuating
....” (brief, page 12). Such an interpretation would be, not
only inconsistent with but, actually controverted by the
appellant’s specification disclosure. As correctly indicated
by the examiner, the disclosure at lines 13 through 16 in
column 3 of the subject specification reflects that a stable
emulsion is one which is capable of being re-emulsified . 3
Pursuant to this disclosure, an emulsion should be considered
stable even though it might separate and require re-
3As also correctly indicated by the examiner, the
appellant’s tests reflect that the emulsion formed by Horibe’s
Example 3 possesses this capability.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007