Appeal No. 1996-2732
Application 08/241,524
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Falk 4,089,804 May 16, 1978
Su 4,528,111 July 09, 1985
Aronson et al. (Aronson) 4,606,913 August 19, 1986
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 9 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being based on a non-enabling disclosure.
II. Claims 9 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Su in view of Aronson and Falk.
We reverse.
Discussion
I.
In view of its brevity, the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reproduced in its entirety:
The Jepson language format claims, in effect, any self foaming gel to be improved.
In fact, the specification provides limited types, thus requiring their identification and
ratio of concentration. This applies to the (page 3) soap or detergent and
propellant (page 4, last paragraph) [Answer, p. 3].
We find this argument unpersuasive.
The first paragraph of § 112 requires, inter alia, that the specification enable those
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007