Appeal No. 1997-3487 Page 3
Application No. 08/473,420
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as not supported by the
originally filed specification. Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over McNeely in view of Bult.
OPINION
We reverse both the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and the rejection
made under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
The examiner rejects the claims on the basis that there is no support in the original specification
for a composition which has not more than about 1 part per million (1 ppm) impurities as recited in
claim 7 (Answer, pages 2-3). The examiner indicates that the range recited in the claim is broader than
the range originally recited in the specification because of the use of the word “about” in the claim.
While it is true that the specification at page 8, lines 18-19 does not use the word “about” when
describing an impurity level of 1 ppm or less, we note that original claim 7 sets forth the composition as
7 7
having “less than about 1 x 10 parts impurities”. We note that 1 x 10 parts, when expressed in parts
per million (ppm), is equal to 10 ppm . Not only does original claim 7 use the term “about” as pointed1
1We note that appellant equates 1 x 10 parts to 1 ppm in the argument made in the Reply Brief7
7 6
at page 1. This seems to be in error as dividing 1 x 10 by 1 x 10 in order to convert parts to parts
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007