Appeal No. 1997-1219
Application 08/432,649
conveyed to an artisan with ordinary skill their
interpretation rather than the examiner's interpretation. In
any event, and perhaps more importantly, this specification
disclosure even when interpreted in the manner urged by the
appellants, fails to provide written description support for
the here claimed ratio. This is because the ingredient
amounts disclosed in specification Example 6 yield a ratio of
approximately 91/9 rather than the "90/10" ratio which is
precisely recited in appealed claim 7. In this latter regard,
we emphasize that claim 7 contains no language which broadens
the scope of the "90/10" ratio recited therein so as to
include the approximately 91/9 ratio derived from
specification Example 6.
Under the circumstances recounted above, we will sustain
the examiner's § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 7.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007