Appeal No. 95-4743
Application No. 08/066,773
Since we are in substantial accord with the examiner's
reasoning, set forth in his Answer, we incorporate that
reasoning by reference herein to avoid unnecessary repetition.
Rejection Under 37 CFR 1.196(b)
In accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.196(b), we
hereby apply the following new grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 112, paragraph 2,
as being indefinite or, alternatively, under 35 USC 112,
paragraph 1, as being based on a nonenabling disclosure.
With regard to indefiniteness, the term "substantially
similar" or "similar", recited in independent claims 1, 10 and
11, does not define any meaningful relationship between the
recited oil residue and the base oil to be thickened with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
Specifically, the term in question does not serve to describe
in what way, or to what extent, the oil residue is "similar"
to the base oil. Appellant's specification is of little
assistance in this regard. To wit, the specification does not
define the intended metes and bounds of the word "similar"
with any degree of particularity. The concept of "similarity"
apparently being at the heart of appellant's invention, it is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007