Appeal No. 2005-1211
Application No. 08/120,105
lines 16-18, adequately describes the claim language. Also, the
Ser van der Ven publication cited by appellants, particularly
page 590, first full paragraph, provides evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that
the original specification reasonably conveys the claimed concept
of determining the melting range in a DSC spectrum with the
claimed heating/cooling protocol.
However, we agree with the examiner that the specification
does not adequately describe (§ 112, first paragraph) and
particularly point out (§ 112, second paragraph) the claimed
"half-intensity width of the melting peak is broader than 10°C
and the width determined at quarter peak height is greater than
15°C" with respect to the recited broad, bimodal, or multimodal
melting range. We concur with the examiner that "[t]he
specification never teaches what 'the peak' references in the
melting ranges which are bimodal or polymodal, which by
definition have more than one peak" (page 4 of Answer, second
paragraph). Also, we agree with the examiner that "there is no
teaching as to how half widths and quarter widths are determined
for melting peaks which are not completely resolved" (id.).
Furthermore, inasmuch as a bimodal or multimodal melting range
would have more than one melting peak, the examiner properly
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007