Appeal No. 98-0140
S.N. 08/401761
9. George H. Stout and Lyle H. Jenson: Practice of X-Ray
Structural Analysis, 26-34 (1989).*** [hereinafter referred
to as the “Stout” publication]
***Section 1.3 of the Stout publication was translated into
English, and this English translation was provided as
representative of this publication.
10. T.D. Sims et al., Comparison of Supramolecular Aggregate
Structure and Spectroscopic and Photoelectrochemical
Properties of Tetravalent and Trivalent Metal
Phthalocyanine Thin Films, Chemistry of Materials, 26-34,
(1989). [hereinafter referred to as the “Sims” publication]
Claims 3, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§112, paragraph 2.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the above-
noted rejection.
The examiner rejects claims 3, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, paragraph 2, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which appellants regard as their invention. (Answer,
page 4).
Here, the examiner asserts that the claims are
indefinite because the wavelength for determining the Bragg
angle has not been identified in the specification and thus
it is unclear what phthalocyanines are being claimed.
(Answer, pages 4-5). The examiner asserts there are many
different wavelengths that can be used in the art to
determine Bragg angles, and therefore it is critical to
identify the type of radiation source utilized when
irradiating a titanyl phthalocyanine crystal in order to
provide meaning to the Bragg angles used in defining the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007