Appeal No. 1997-1018
Application No. 08/369,944
(page 7, ll. 19-20; page 8, ll. 5 and 11-12; and claim 5). It
is clear from the disclosures and teachings of Howe that the
range “0.1 to 20%” referred to the total amount of acrylic
residues while the range “0.3 to 5%” was taught as the limits
for the amount of the hydroxyethyl methacrylate monomer.
Accordingly, we determine that the subject matter of claim 21
on appeal is not described within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) by Howes. Therefore
the rejection of claim 21, and claims 22-28 dependent on claim
21, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Howes is
reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007