Appeal No. 1998-1176
Application No. 08/553,072
According to appellant, the invention is directed to an
ultraviolet (UV) light absorber composition which is
spontaneously dilutable in water to allow its use in
conventional textile dyeing and is based on the synergistic
combination of the UV light absorber and a suitable solvent
(Brief, page 2). Appellant states that the claims do not
stand or fall together and have presented specific,
substantive reasons for the separate patentability of each
claim rejected in view of prior art (Brief, pages 5 and 8-
10). Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7)(1995), we decide this appeal as to the ground of
rejection under section 112 on the basis of claims 12 and 19,
with claims 5-10, 21 and 22 standing or falling with claim 19.
With respect to the rejections based on prior art, we consider
each claim separately to the extent argued by appellant.
Illustrative claims 12 and 19 are reproduced below:2
12. A UV light absorber composition for improving the
lightfastness of dyed synthetic textiles, consisting
essentially of:
2We note that claims 12 and 19 are not correctly
reproduced in the Appendix attached to appellant’s Brief (see
the Answer, page 3).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007