Appeal No. 95-0063
Application No. 07/813,868
As stated in the Examiner's Answer, page 2, the previously
entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs, have been withdrawn. The issue remaining for review
is whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 through 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maclaren. For the
reasons set forth below, this rejection is reversed.
DISCUSSION
Maclaren discloses a method which bears close relationship
to the method recited in claims 15 through 34, except that
Maclaren's starting material is partially oxidized wool. Claims
15 through 24 preclude wool in view of the language "a water-
insoluble polymer of non-polypeptide structure exhibiting a
disulfide (-S-S-) group directly bound to a saturated carbon atom
at each of its sulfur atoms." Likewise, the polymer in claim 32
is "insoluble in water and of non-polypeptide structure." Claims
25 through 31, 33 and 34 also preclude wool in view of the
express proviso that "the polymer carrying the disulfide group is
not a wool textile fiber." In sum, Maclaren's method and the
claimed method are similar but Maclaren uses a partially oxidized
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007