Appeal No. 95-1872
Application 07/953,340
The Prior Art
The following prior art reference is relied upon by the examiner in support of the rejection of the
claims for obviousness:
Stangroom 1,570,234 Jun. 25, 1980
(British Patent Specification)
The following prior art references are referred to by appellant in the Brief and Reply Brief:
Won (I) 4,690,825 Sep. 1, 1987
Katz et al. 5,073,365 Dec. 17, 1991
Liscomb 5,126,381 Jun. 30, 1992
Won (II) 5,145,675 Sep. 8, 1992
Carmody 5,145,685 Sep 8, 1992
The Rejections
Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to adequately
teach how to make the polymeric sponge material.
Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Stangroom.
Opinion
Having considered the entire record of this application, including the arguments advanced by both
the examiner and appellant in support of their respective positions, we will not sustain any of the examiner's
rejections. We agree with appellant that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated by Stangroom for
reasons set forth below. We also find that the original disclosure of the application as of its filing date is
enabling as to the polymeric sponge material for essentially those reasons expressed in the appellant’s Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007