Appeal No. 2000-1568
Application 08/695,249
Again, considering In re Moore, and the direction provided therein by the court, we
turn to the specification and find that it discloses that “the membrane stabilization agent
should be in the range of about 50 mM to about 1M, or about 10-65% by dry weight of the
complete formulation.” Specification, p. 9. In our view, one skilled in the art, upon reading
the broad range of the membrane stabilization agent recited in the claim and the
specification would have understood that the exact amount of this agent in the formulation
is not critical. Thus, we agree with the appellants, that the claimed range is more for
purposes of guidance in making the formulation, and not for precision.
Third, the examiner argues that
Claim 17 recites adding water, it is not clear that the granules remain as granules
and do not dissolve or become adherent to each other. Claim 9 is [directed] to [the]
formation of a granule, however, the admixture with more water, a solvent, would be
expected to result in solvation of the material placed in the solvent. Addition of
more water makes the claim indefinite as to the retention of “granular formulation”
that is recited in claim 9 and in claim 17 since claim 17 is dependent upon claim 9 [
Answer, p. 4].
It is not really clear to us what the examiner’s problem is with claim 17. We find
nothing indefinite with the claim language. In our view, one skilled in the art would have
understood that claim 17 is directed to dispersing the granules produced by the method of
claim 9 in water. Claim 17 merely adds an additional step to the method.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, Rejection I is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007