Appeal No. 1997-2193
Application 07/986,648
the examiner has simply not substantiated by presentation of
objective evidence or scientific argument that any compound
within the broad description which comprises the "Markush
group" would not possess utility as an anionic surfactant as
alleged by appellants.
CLAIM 17
Claim 17 is, obviously, not a duplicate of claim 1. Claim
1 is directed to a compound. Claim 17, as we understand the
claim, is directed to the combination of the compound in a
liquid. As such, claim 17 is understood to be a composition
claim. Thus, a person could make the invention of claim 1
without practicing the subject matter of claim 17. The
rejection is reversed.
CLAIM 3
To the extent we understand the examiner's position with
respect to claim 3, we reverse. It seems apparent to this
panel that the "substitutents" on the piperazine ring must
depend on the nature of R and R''' which together with the
nitrogen atoms and W form the piperazine ring.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner rejecting appellants' claims
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007