Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
The Examiner urges that the specification does not provide
adequate descriptive support for the properties of the binder
solution. In particular, the Examiner asserts “[t]here is no
support for the scope of the limitation ‘a rate selected based
upon at least one property of the binder solution’ because
Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] cited support at p. 10, lines
17-23 does not provide support for the entire claim genus of
all binder solution properties.” (Answer, p. 3).
The Examiner’s position is not persuasive. As correctly
noted by Appellants, the specification at page 10 describes
properties of the binder solution such as drying uniformity,
binder type and binder concentration. While it is recognized
that the specification does not describe all possible
properties of the binder solution, the determination of proper
binder properties would have been conveyed by the original
disclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Consequently,
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, of claims 1-15, 48 and 49 is reversed.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The Examiner has rejected claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite. We affirm. The Examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007