Ex parte MALHOTRA et al. - Page 2




                Appeal No. 95-3783                                                                                                            
                Application 08/034,917                                                                                                        


                Nagai                                          5,013,634                                  May 7, 1991                         
                         Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a recording                                                             
                sheet comprising a base sheet and a phosphonium compound of the                                                               
                recited formula.  The claimed sheet finds utility as a receiving                                                              
                element for printed images.                                                                                                   
                         Appellants present separate arguments for patentability for                                                          
                claims 2 and 3.  Accordingly, with the exception of claims 2 and                                                              
                3, all the appealed claims stand or fall together.  In re Wood,                                                               
                582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte                                                                    
                Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1017-19 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).  See                                                             
                also 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (1995).                                                                                  
                         Appealed claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-22, 25 and 26 stand rejected                                                           
                under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.   Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 25 2                                                            
                stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                                                               
                the admitted state of the art found in the present specification.                                                             
                In addition, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10 and 25 stand rejected under                                                              
                35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the                                                                         
                alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                                                 
                Nagai.                                                                                                                        



                         2We consider the examiner’s statement of the rejection at                                                            
                page 2 of the Answer as under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to be harmless,                                                                 
                inadvertent error.                                                                                                            
                                                                    -2-                                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007