Appeal No. 1996-2844
Application No. 07/955,162
Briefly stated, we agree with the examiner that Van Neste
anticipates, or at least renders obvious, appellant’s claimed
invention essentially for the reasons presented in the
examiner’s Answer and Supplemental Answer.
For emphasis, we note that the Van Neste disclosure
encompasses all of appellant’s claimed antifreeze components
as well as the claimed concentration ranges. There appears to
be little question that the Van Neste composition, as
formulated according to the Van Neste disclosure, would be
phosphate-free and substantially anhydrous. As for the claim
expression "suitable for use as coolant in an engine cooling
system without water dilution", we note that statements of
intended use in the preamble of a composition claim ordinarily
carry little patentable weight. See In re Tuominen, 671 F.2d
1359, 1361,
213 USPQ 89, 90 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). In any event,
appellant’s specification (page 3, l. 13-18) suggests that the
use of certain anhydrous antifreeze formulations without water
dilution is known in the prior art.
Appellant urges that the expression "consisting
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007