Appeal 2007-1629
Application 10/138,337
Here, to the extent that the Appellants have argued that the “cyclic . . .
hydrocarbons” has other meanings (see Br. 7), we reject these meanings and
interpret the phrase to mean aromatic and non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbons.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Examiner erred
in rejecting Claims 1-13 and 17-19 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. The rejection is
REVERSED.
dm
NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA & QUIGG, LLP
1300 EYE STREET NW
SUITE 1000 WEST TOWER
WASHINGTON DC 20005
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013