Appeal No. 2005-1529
Application No. 10/385,314
scope with the degree of protection sought by claims 6 and 12.
As indicated at pages 12 and 13, footnotes 8 and 9, and at page
15 of our Decision, the showing in the specification and
declarations is limited to couple very specific thermoplastic
compositions. However, claims 6 and 12 still embrace
multifarious thermoplastic compositions which are not supported
by the showing in the specification and declarations. Claim 6,
for example, broadly defines X of the already broadly recited
formula in claim 5. It states that:
X is a divalent radical two or more aromatic rings
joined by a non-aromatic linkage, any of which may be
substituted at one or more sites on the aromatic rings
with a halo group or (C1-C6)alkyl group and wherein the
organophosphorus has an alkenyl phenyl diphenyl
phosphate content of from 0 to 2000 parts by weight per
million parts by weight of the organophosphorus
compound.
Claim 12, on the other hand, does not require the presence of the
additional polymers and compounds employed in the showing in the
specification and declarations and is not limited to a “mixture
of resocinol diphosphate oligomers having average degree of
polymerization of 1.13" or a “[m]ixture of bisphenol A diphophate
[sic, diphosphate] oligomers with average degree of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007