Appeal No. 1996-2731
Application No. 08/240,862
components and concentrations listed on page 9 and Table I of the specification. The
examiner also withdrew the final rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention with respect to the phrases “[a]ctive
ingredients” and “consisting essentially of”. See, Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed September 25, 1995), page 3. The remaining issue on appeal is the rejection of
claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maes,
Brooks and Syed. We reverse.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the Examiner’s Answer for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. We further reference appellant’s Brief
(Paper No. 11, filed September 11, 1995) for the appellant’s arguments in favor of
patentability.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007