Appeal No. 1997-3609
Application No. 08/483,349
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from that portion of my esteemed
colleagues' decision in which they have reversed the
examiner's Section 103 rejection of claims 1 through 13 as
being unpatentable over Dormish in view of Mafoti and Yilgör.
I would affirm this rejection for a number of reasons.
First of all, I do not consider the "consisting
essentially of" language of the appellants' independent claim
to exclude the diamines or triamines (or for that matter the
fillers) of Dormish. For the reasons indicated in the "Other
issues" section of the majority opinion, I interpret the
appealed claims, consistent with the subject specification, as
encompassing rather than excluding these ingredients. This is
because the record of this application including particularly
the appellants' specification reflects that such ingredients
are intended to be included in rather than excluded from the
appellants' adhesive composition.
These circumstances militate against the proposition that
the ingredients in question would materially affect the basic
and novel characteristics of the composition defined in the
appealed claims. In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d at 954, 137
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007