Ex Parte TSUTSUI et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1999-1460                                                        
          Application No. 08/070,859                                                  


                    1.  A method of reversible thermosensitive coloring               
               recording by selective manifestation of different states of            
               a functional element which consists essentially of two                 
               compounds and is capable of alternatively assuming (a) a               
               first state in which said two compounds interact to form a             
               regular aggregate structure, or (b) a second state in which            
               said two compounds do not interact, and at least one of said           
               two compounds is in an aggregate or crystallized state, by             
               heating and cooling said functional element to obtain one of           
               said two states, wherein at least one of said two compounds            
               has a long hydrocarbon chain structure, and said second                
               state is attained by the aggregation force of said long                
               hydrocarbon chain structure.                                           
               All of the claims on appeal stand finally rejected under the           
          first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based upon a                    
          specification disclosure which would not enable one skilled in              
          the art to make and/or use the here-claimed invention.  According           
          to the examiner, “[t]he specification is non-enabling for [the              
          appealed] claims which utilize the language ‘regular aggregate              
          structure’ because this phrase does not have a well defined scope           
          and meaning in the art and is not defined within the                        
          specification” (answer, page 3).                                            
               The claims on appeal also stand finally rejected under the             
          second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly             
          point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the                 
          appellants’ regard as their invention.  The examiner considers              
          the appealed claims to offend the second paragraph of Section 112           
          because “[t]he phrase ‘regular aggregate structure’ is indefinite           

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007