Appeal No. 1998-1176
Application No. 08/553,072
The examiner’s reliance on Example 12 from appellant’s
specification is misplaced since, as correctly argued by
appellant (Brief, page 7), Example 12 is only one of twenty
examples and need not support the entire claimed range.
Contrary to the examiner’s belief, any particular solvent must
only be capable of dissolving at least 5% of the UV agent and
at least 2% of any emulsifier used (see the specification,
page 8, ll. 21-23).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not presented sufficient facts or reasoning to meet the
initial burden of proof. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1,
is reversed. B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under section 102(b) as
anticipated by col. 23, ll. 25-29, of DesLauriers, which the
examiner finds to disclose the addition of 5.89 grams of a
substituted benzotriazole UV light absorbing agent in 70 grams
“consisting essentially of” which excludes components which
would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics.
We also note that claims 12 and 19 now require no additional
surfactant or emulsifier.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007