Appeal No. 2002-1584 Page 4
Application No. 09/283,449
"azeotropic combination" called for by the appealed claims.2
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Webster, or the rejection of claims 10 and 26 through 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Webster.
The examiner's decision is reversed.3
REVERSED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Donald E. Adams )
)) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge
)
) INTERFERENCES
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
Legal Patent Records Center
Barley Mill Plaza 25/1128
4417 Lancaster Pike
2 In their specification, applicants use the terms "azeotrope," "azeotrope-like
composition," and "azeotropic combination" consistent with the art-recognized meaning
of those terms. Compare the specification, page 4, line 8 through page 5, line 13 with
The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 8th edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., p. 86
(1971)(copy enclosed).
3 Applicants also request rejoinder and allowance of withdrawn claims 11
through 25 (Appeal Brief, Paper No. 11, page 10). However, we lack authority to
entertain that request. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479
(CCPA 1971)(There are a host of decisions an examiner makes in the examination
proceeding - mostly matters of a discretionary, procedural or non-substantive nature -
which have not been and are not now appealable to the board or to this court when
they are not directly connected with the merits of issues involving rejections of claims).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007