Appeal No. 1997-2874
Application 08/219,160
opinion and decision issued by another merits panel of the Board in parent application
07/837,126 (Paper No. 14, Appeal No. 94-0905, mailed February 8, 1994).
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner's rejections.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST AND SECOND PARAGRAPHS
Claims 1-7 and 15-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs. According to the examiner, applicants' specification does not contain a written
description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in
such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it
pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. Further, the
examiner argues that applicants' specification does not conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicants regard
as their invention.
In the Examiner's Answer, page 4, lines 2-6, the examiner explains the rejection as
follows:
The portion of specification at page 7, lines 3, 4 does not
support about 3 mole percent, that portion is not defined and
cannot be arbitrarily assigned this value.
On page 12, only a specific polymer appears to possess “3 molar
percent” only.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007