Appeal No. 1997-2209
Application No. 08/179,196
all of the aforementioned rejections. Our reasons are set
forth below.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. According to the
examiner, claims 17, 23 and 26 are allegedly indefinite
because definitions for the phrases “a lower alkoxy group” in
claim 17, “a lower alkoxy group” in claim 23, “a lower alkyl
group” in claim 26, and “a lower alkoxy group” in claim 26 are
not included in the specification. The examiner has taken the
position that these phrases do not have fixed meanings in the
art, as evidenced by Sinta (column 7, line 54; column 9, lines
50 and 51) and Urano (column 2, lines 65 and 66; column 7,
line 20), and that in the absence of a standard for
ascertaining the limiting number of carbon atoms for each of
these phrases, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
reasonably be apprised of the scope of the claimed invention
(answer, page 10). Additionally, the examiner states that
claims 31 and 32 are indefinite because the basis for the
weight percentages is not clear (answer, page 10). On the
other hand, the appellants submit that the criticized terms at
issue in claims 17, 23 and 26 would “reasonably be understood
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007