Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
properties must be present and no interpretation of Furness can
result in those properties. Again, most of the properties urged
are either not recited in the claims, or not shown to be absent
from Furness by evidence of record.
For sake of completeness, we address each of these
contentions below seriatim.
Appellants’ Point 3: The examiner’s position is that the
claims do not eliminate high boiling aromatic hydrocarbon.
(Appeal Brief, page 18, lines 21 et seq.). The appellants have
provided no citation to the record for this issue, and our review
of the Examiner’s Final rejection indicates that the statement
appears at page 2, lines 10-11 in the context that there is no
absolute requirement of high boiling aromatic solvent.
The appellants also argue that claim 24 concludes with the
limitation that no high-boiling aromatic hydrocarbon is present.
We agree, and note that the statement of the Examiner appears to
be in error in that regard. However, we find that claim 24 still
does not define over the suggested Furness non-high boiling
solvent used.
Appellants’ Point 4: A composition comprising 50% ester, 48%
high boiling aromatic hydrocarbon, 1% resin, and 1% isocyanate is
within the scope of the claims. We agree with the appellants
that this statement is incorrect; however, again it is harmless
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007