Appeal No. 2000-0459
Application 08/838,584
appellants on pages 7 and 8 of the brief also makes this self-
evident.
We note that the specification is directed to one of
ordinary skill in the art, carrying with him/her, the knowledge
(as reflected, for example, in the references discussed by
appellants) that it is well known in the art that it is
understood that such a formula as in claim 24 includes an oxyl
group. Given this general knowledge, we determine that one of
ordinary skill in the art would find that the only plausible
interpretation of claim 24 is that the “oxygen” is an oxyl group,
and this would be understood to be as such to one skilled in the
art. Just as the examiner has recognized this interpretation, so
too would one of ordinary skill in the art.
We therefore determine that one having ordinary skill in the
art would not be speculative in concluding that the specific type
of formula in claim 24 includes an oxyl.
We therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claim 24.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007