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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007