Appeal No. 2006-0436
Application No. 09/942,465
Based on the totality of record, including due consideration
of the appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of Section 103(a). Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of either Reiff ‘370 or ‘737 and Danner.
As for the Section 112, second paragraph, rejection, we note
the examiner’s concern over the phrase “at one and the same time
or in any desired order” recited in claim 8. Although the phrase
in question is awkwardly written, it does not rise to the level
of indefiniteness. From our perspective, it would have
reasonably apprised one of ordinary skill in the art that the
claimed reactants can be combined simultaneously or in any
sequence desired by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we
reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 8 under Section
112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007