Appeal 97-1458 Application 08/329,940 We essentially disagree with the examiner's rationale and reverse, with the exception of the examiner's discussion about the formula of C F NO--a matter, which as noted earlier, we 5 11 are not in position to resolve on this record. As to this matter, we vacate and remand essentially for reasons already given. 3. The examiner's indefiniteness rejection The examiner feels that the claim 14 is somehow indefinite. An initial criticism seems to have been applicants use of "comprising." Applicants now recite "consisting essentially." Hence, at least the "comprising" rationale has gone by the boards. The examiner also seems to believe that a boiling point needs to be recited in the claim. We disagree. The indefiniteness rejection is reversed. 4. The prior art rejection The examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Geiger, U.S. Patent 4,038,276 (1977) is reversed. Geiger describes the use of a solvent. In a light most favorable to the examiner, the solvent may be m-chlorotrifluorotoluene, - 17 -Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007