Appeal No. 2002-0224
Application 08/628,327
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not set
forth a factual basis which is sufficient to establish prima
facie obviousness of the invention recited in any of the
appellants’ claims.1 Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
rejections.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claims 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to provide adequate written descriptive
support for the claimed invention.
The appellants’ independent claims (23 and 27) both require
that the additive is silicone free. This requirement was
introduced into the claims by amendment (amendments filed
August 18, 1997 (paper no. 14, page 2) and February 12, 1998
(paper no. 18, page 2)). The appellants’ originally-filed
specification discloses particular nonionic oleophobic
fluorochemical additive compounds which contain neither silicon
nor many of the other known elements, and does not disclose any
1 Reed is not relied upon by the examiner for a teaching
which remedies the deficiencies in the above-discussed references
as to the independent claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007