Appeal No. 1998-1146 Page 7
Application No. 08/410,177
characteristic of a true binary azeotrope." While we are
cognizant that appellants offer a more conventional and
perhaps more limiting definition of "azeotrope" (page 9, lines
25-29 of their specification), it is clear from the
specification as a whole that appellants use the term
"azeotropic" in their claims to embrace all of the
compositions that include the claimed specified components in
the specified amounts. In this regard, we note that the
specification makes manifest that mixtures that do "not tend
to fractionate to any great extent upon evaporation"
(specification, page 6, lines 18-20) are included within
appellants’ definition of "azeotropic." This expansive
definition of "azeotropic" is in accord with appellants’ use
of components of "normal commercial purity (i.e., at least
95%)" (specification, page 6, lines 8 and 9) in forming their
so called azeotropic composition. Also see appellants’ brief,
page 4, lines 3-7.
Since we find appellants’ claims reasonably definite, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
§ 102 Rejections
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007