Appeal No. 96-3946
Application No. 08/208,317
proportions actually recited in the claims may be read in
theory to include compositions that are impossible in fact to
formu-late." Accordingly, the term "optional" in the claims
does not render the claims indefinite.
The examiner further questions (Answer, pages 5-6)
whether the coating weight in claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22,
23, 27, 28, 31, and 32 refers to a dry coating weight or a wet
coating weight. However, the relative weight percentages
remain the same whether the coating is wet or dry.
Accordingly, the failure to indicate whether the coating
weight is for a wet or a dry coating does not render the
claims indefinite.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that in claims 7,
8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, and 23, "'the solid contents' lack
antecedent basis and is therefore indefinite. It is not clear
as to what defines the solid contents." Appellant contends
(Brief, page 19) that
The meaning of "solids content" is clear and
unambig-uous to those in the coating art. In
addition, the working examples at pages 27 and 28
clearly indicate the meaning of the term "solids
content" to one of ordinary skill in the art;
specifically, this term refers to the solid contents
of the coating composition that are admixed with a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007