Appeal No. 2002-2029
Application No. 09/440,037
While the appellants have conceded that the recitation
“from about 2 to about 100 grams of ethyl acetate per 100° proof
liter of the raw distillate” in claim 20 is inconsistent with
the specification description5 and have thus offered to correct
this error by amendment, we must agree with the appellants that
this inconsistency does not raise any genuine issues under 35
U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, ¶1.
For these reasons, we cannot uphold the examiner’s
rejections on either of these grounds.
Summary
In summary, our disposition of this appeal is as follows:
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of appealed claims 20
through 22 as lacking utility is reversed;
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, of appealed claims
20 through 22 as failing to comply with the enablement
requirement of the statute is reversed; and
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, of appealed claims
1 through 14 and 20 through 23 as indefinite is reversed.
5 See, e.g., specification, p. 1, ll. 17-20; p. 7, ll. 13-
18.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007