Appeal No. 96-2675
Application No. 08/299,760
“other useful articles.” One of ordinary skill in art reading
the claims in light of the specification would be possessed
with a reasonable degree of certainty as to the subject matter
encompassed within the claims. Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish with respect to the phrase, “other useful
articles,” that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
apprised of the scope of the claims containing this phrase.
As to the rejection by the examiner of the term,
“dissolved polymer” as being without proper antecedent basis,
Answer, page 3, we agree with appellant that the term,
“thermoplastic polymer” provides sufficient antecedent basis.
We further note that the examiner has not responded to
appellant’s argument. Accordingly, we conclude that
sufficient antecedent basis for the term, “dissolved polymer,”
is present in the claimed subject matter.
Based on the above analysis, the rejection under § 112
is not sustained.
DECISION
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007