Appeal No. 2005-1211
Application No. 08/120,105
notes that "it is indefinite as to which peak either 'the peak'
or 'the melting peak' refers" (page 4 of Answer, last paragraph).
While appellants rely upon the cited ISO 3146 publication as
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the scope of the claimed subject matter, the examiner has
accurately pointed out that the ISO publication is not describing
a bimodal or multimodal composition. Neither appellants'
specification, nor any reference cited by appellants, describes
how one of ordinary skill in the art would determine the claimed
half-intensity width of the melting peak and the quarter peak
height. Appellants' analysis based on "logic" does not have the
requisite factual support, such as, for example, a declaration by
one of ordinary skill in the art.
As for the § 112, second paragraph rejection, it should be
evident from our discussion above that we find that the appealed
claims are indefinite in setting forth the metes and bounds of
the subject matter within the scope of the appealed claims.
Also, while we agree with the examiner that the claim language
"the peak in the melting range has a maximum and can be bimodal
or multimodal" is indefinite because bimodal and multimodal
compositions admittedly contain more than one peak, we concur
with appellants that the definitions of R3 and R4 reasonably
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007