Appeal No. 2006-2248
Application No. 10/158,618
patent claim 1. However, they are not identical and no disclosed composition
corresponds to the patent claim. 2
Prosecution history of the original application
16. As noted earlier, the patent sought to be reissued was based on
application 08/940,880, filed September 30, 1997 ("original application").
17. As filed, the original application contained claims 1-10
(reproduced in Appendix 1 of this opinion). Only claim 1 is independent.
18. Original independent application claim 1 recites three (3)
components of the claimed composition and no specific % w/w for the components
with all three components being recited as a genus of chemical compounds.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 9 limit the genus to a recited group of chemical
compounds. Dependent claims 6-8 and 10 limit the genus to one specific chemical
compound.
19. On June 22, 1999, the Examiner entered a first Office action.
2 We note that patent claim 1 (the claim 1 currently on appeal) is NOT identical to
allowed claim 11, and neither are identical to Example 11 of the specification.
There appear to be both transcription and printing errors which are not corrected by
this reissue. The % w/w of the last 3-4 compounds in Example 11 of the original
application specification should be carefully compared to patent claim 1.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007