Ex parte WERNER et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-1125                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/410,247                                                  


          the production of foams and for solvent cleaning applications               
          (specification, pages 4 and 5).  An understanding of the                    
          invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,               
          which is reproduced below.                                                  
                         1.  An azeotropic composition consisting                     
                    essentially of                                                    
                         a) from about 26 to about 72% by weight                      
                    perfluorohexane and                                               
                         b) one compound selected from the group                      
                    consisting of                                                     
                         1) from about 36 to about 74% by weight 2-                   
                    methyl butane or                                                  
                         2) from about 28 to about 53% by weight n-                   
                    pentane in which the sum of the weight percent                    
                    of a) plus weight percent b) is approximately                     
                    100 percent.                                                      

               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Smits et al. (Smits I)        5,250,579                Oct. 05,             
          1993                                                                        
          Smits et al. (Smits II)       5,286,759                Feb. 15,             
          1994                                                                        
               Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                
          paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly                   
          point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which                     
          applicants regard as the invention.  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8                
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Smits                








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007