Appeal No. 96-2833
Application 08/202,772
first paragraph. These are separate requirements. See Moore,
439 F.2d at 1235, 169 USPQ at 238-9. We have considered the
examiner’s arguments as they might apply to both of these
requirements.
The examiner argues that an encapsulated non-soap
ingredient is not a soap (answer, pages 3-4). The examiner
apparently is arguing that appellants’ specification either
does not describe a soap or would not have enabled one of
ordinary skill in the art to form a soap. In any event, the
examiner’s reasoning is deficient because he has not taken
into account appellants’ definition of “soap” discussed above.
The examiner argues that the same compound can be a
detergent or surfactant (answer, page 4), but it is not clear
why the examiner concludes from this argument that appellants’
claims fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
The examiner argues that appellants’ poly(vinyl alcohol)
hydrogel is an open-pore material (answer, page 5). The
examiner apparently is arguing that appellants’ specification
would not have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007