Appeal No. 95-0878
Application 07/921,820
The Prior Art
The following prior art references are relied upon by the examiner in support of the rejection of the
claims:
Fuller et al. (Fuller) 5,166,026 Nov. 24, 1992
Ikeda et al. (JP 4-202345) 2 4-202345 Jul. 23, 1992
(Japanese Kôkai Published Application)
The Rejections3
Claims 3, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a
non-enabling disclosure.
Claims 1, 4, 6-15 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Fuller
and under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by JP 4-202345.
Opinion
The examiner rejected claims 3, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on an
objection to the specification that “the specification does not enable polyoxazoline of the formula shown
in claim [sic, claims] 3 and 21” (answer: p. 3). In particular, the examiner asserts that
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... the term “oxazoline” is a cyclic structure and
a polyoxazoline thus signifies a polymer having this cyclic structure. As Applicant’s [sic,
Our consideration of this reference is based on an English translation which is of record.2
3The final Office action included a rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-15 and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
According to the examiner, this rejection has been withdrawn. See page 4 of the answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007