Appeal No. 1999-1321
Application No. 08/625,495
application describe the claim limitations exactly, but only so clearly that one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would recognize from the disclosure that
appellants invented processes including those limitations.” In re Herschler, 591
F.2d 693, 700, 200 USPQ 711, 717 (CCPA 1979).
The instant specification describes the inventive compositions broadly, as
compositions comprising a volatile oil, an alcohol, and a fixed oil, without reciting
specific amounts of each ingredient. See page 5, line 19 to page 6, line 3.
Original claim 1 also set no limit on the proportion of volatile oil, alcohol, and
fixed oil in the claimed compositions. It is true that the specification recites
ranges of ingredients without including the modifier “about.” Page 6, lines 16-22.
When we view the recited ranges in context, however, we find that one having
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Appellants invented the compositions
now claimed. Therefore, the specification provides an adequate description of
the claimed compositions.
2. The obviousness rejection
The examiner rejected the claimed compositions as obvious over the
combined disclosures of Stoltz, Joanides, and Melnicake. Stoltz discloses
cooking sprays comprising vegetable oil, ethanol, and other components
including flavoring agents. The examiner points specifically to an herbal salad
dressing spray disclosed by Stoltz, which comprises vegetable oil (74.9% to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007