Appeal No. 97-2174
Application No. 08/214,763
term “reproducible dosing” is expressly defined at lines 4
through 7 of specification page 10. Under these
circumstances, we perceive no basis with the examiner’s view
that “so quickly” renders appealed independent claim 1 and the
claims which depend therefrom indefinite.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims
1 through 24.
Concerning the section 103 rejection, the examiner argues
“it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute the dispersing agent of WO 92/00062 [i.e., Moris]
with the ester of JP 4,169,554 [i.e., the Japanese reference]
and obtain the claimed aerosol; the motivation to do so being
from the disclosure that the ester(s) of JP 4,169,554 show
excellent mutual solubility/compatibility with 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane, which is also the propellant of WO
92/00062” (answer, pages 3-4). The appellants are correct,
however, that the solubility referred to in the Japanese
reference plainly would not have motivated “one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute the dispersing agent of WO
92/00062 with the ester of JP 4,169,554” as proposed by the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007