Appeal No. 1998-1737
Application No. 08/318,702
second paragraph. Nor will we sustain the examiner's § 103
rejections based on Hoeschele. We will, however, sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 54 and 57-59 based on
Münzmay.
We consider first the examiner's rejections under § 112,
second paragraph. We do not subscribe to the examiner's position
that the claim 1 language "the adhesive strip . . . does not
deform when handled" is indefinite because "it is not clear under
what force the material maintains its shape" (page 4 of Answer,
first paragraph). We concur with appellants that the examiner
has not established that, when the claim language is read in
light of the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art of
adhesives for placing glass modules in window frames would not
understand that the module would maintain its shape during normal
handling.
As for the "low molecular solid compounds" of claims 11 and
15, appellants have provided sufficient evidence in their Reply
Brief that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
reasonably ascertain the scope of the claimed isocyanates when
the specification and state of the prior art are taken into
consideration.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007