Appeal No. 2003-0757
Application No. 09/849,884
has not reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in this art
that he was in possession of the claimed phrase where the amount
of ultraviolet absorber in the second layer was “approximately
one-fifth” the amount in the first layer. As noted in our
Decision (page 5), the examiner has met his initial burden and
the burden has now shifted to appellant. Appellant has failed to
establish that the Example(s) of the specification, directed to a
ratio of 0.187, reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in
this art that appellant was in possession of ratios both closely
above and below 0.2, i.e., “approximately one-fifth.”
Additionally, as noted by the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and
6; Decision, pages 5-6), appellant has not established what the
claimed word “concentration” means, i.e., does “concentration”
refer to parts per 100 total parts or parts per parts of solids.
In other words, are the solvents included in the calculations of
“concentration”? Appellant states that his calculations do not
include the presence or absence of a solvent (Request, page 2)
but the examiner presents different calculations based on the
amount of solids (Answer, pages 3 and 6). Thus, even knowing
that “concentration” means “strength or density” (Request,
sentence bridging pages 1-2), the examiner has established that
this term could be calculated by at least two methods. Contrary
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007