Appeal No. 95-2579
Application 08/134,707
References of Record
The examiner relies on the following references as evidence of obviousness:
Peterson 4,073,788 Feb. 14, 1978
Lee 4,829,131 May 9, 1989
Chion et al. (Chion) 0 224 680 Jun. 10, 1987
(Published European Patent Application)
Yamada et al (Yamada) 0 349 010 Jan. 3, 1990
(Published European Patent Application)
Rhee et al. (Rhee), “Synthesis of Alternating Aromatic Copolyimides,” Macromolecules, Vol. 26,
Number 2, Pages 404-406 (1993).
The Rejections2
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chion in
view of Peterson or Rhee.
Claims 7, 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chion in view
of Peterson or Rhee and further in view of Yamada or Lee.
Claims 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chion in view of
Yamada or Lee.
2In the answer and in the brief, the examiner and appellant enter into a dialog regarding a Japanese reference (an abstract
to a Japanese patent, JP 03197530), cited by appellant in an information disclosure statement (paper no. ½) submitted
before the first action on the merits. First, while appellant did attach a copy of the reference to his reply brief, we note
that we were unable to find the original reference submitted with the information disclosure statement in the application
file wrapper. Second, we have not considered the reference in reviewing the rejection for obviousness since the
reference is not included in listing of prior art of record relied upon for the rejection. Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304,
1304-05 (Bd. App. & Int. 1993); In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n. 3 (CCPA 1970).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007