Appeal No. 1999-0023
Application No. 08/374,907
suggestive of the subject matter of claim 3, the rejection
thereof cannot be sustained. The other claims on appeal
incorporate the limitations of claim 3; thus, the rejection of
claims 4 through 9, 11 through 15, and 18 through 25 cannot be
sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
The following matters are brought to the examiner’s
attention.
1. Claim 3 sets forth a “substantially” non-aqueous composition,
while the underlying specification (pages 12 and 18) recites a
treatment composition that is “entirely nonaqueous”. The
examiner should assess whether the claimed term of degree
“substantially” when modifying the language “non-aqueous
composition” renders the entire claim recitation understandable
and definite (35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph), in light of the
underlying disclosure, to thereby permit the metes and bounds of
claim 3 to be ascertainable. In making this assessment, it is
necessary to determine whether the specification provides some
standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Company,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007