Appeal 1997-2575
Application 08/524,661
relevant information). In this case, Beers necessarily had
knowledge of all information in his patent and did not
describe or claim an invention which reads on that claimed by
applicant.
For the reasons given, we find that Beers does not teach
one skilled in the art that the oxime/hydroxyl ratio of
Example 3 can be increased to avoid gelation which is said to
have occurred. Rather, one having ordinary skill in the art
would recognize only that the Beers gelation solution of
increasing oxime is limited to gelation problems within the
scope of the compositions he has described and claimed, i.e.,
those having filler contents less than 15 parts by weight and
water contents as high as 0.4% and those having filler
contents greater than 15 parts by weight and water contents no
higher than 0.2%.
C. Decision
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-20 over
Beers is reversed.
REVERSED
- 15 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007