Ex parte SOMMERFELD et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-3734                                                          
          Application No. 08/043,620                                                  


               99. A composition of matter comprising an interpenetrating             
          polymer network wherein:                                                    
               (a) at least two distinct polymer networks from [sic] the              
                    interpenetrating polymer network and                              
               (b) the interpenetrating polymer network is dispersible in             
                    a solvent.  [Emphasis added].                                     
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
               The prior art references relied on by the examiner are:                
          Skinner et al. (Skinner)         4,128,600          Dec.  5, 1978           
          Jones                            4,235,972          Nov. 25, 1980           
          Simpson                          4,361,676          Nov. 30, 1982           
          Wright et al. (Wright)           4,377,661          Mar. 22, 1983           
          Roemer et al. (Roemer)           4,396,476          Aug.  2, 1983           
          Arkles et al. (Arkles)           4,970,263          Nov. 13, 1990           
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1 through 23, 40 through 42 and 99 stand rejected               
          under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative,             
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over "Skinner, Arkles,                
          applicants' disclosure (SPEC, pages 1, 2 (top)), Jones, Wright,             
          Roemer and/or Simpson" (Examiner's Answer, page 3, second                   
          paragraph).  Claims 1 through 23, 40 through 42 and 99 also stand           
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, "as            
          the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear,                 
          concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the              
          art to make and use the same, and/or for failing to particularly            
          point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant           


                                         -3-                                          




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007