Appeal No. 1996-1552
Application 08/241,976
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Ting in view of Gray ‘614.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Ting in view of Spindt.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Ting in view of Gray.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Ting in view of Gray ‘507.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
At the outset, we note our agreement with appellant (as admitted by appellant’s representative
at oral hearing) and the examiner that "[t]he only issue on appeal is whether due diligence has been
shown in the applicant’s declarations under 37 CFR § 1.131 from just prior to the publication of the
Ting et al. article (August 22, 1991) or filing of the Calcatera patent to the filing date of the parent of the
current application [July 30, 1992] (i.e. through the entire critical period)." Answer, page 6; also see,
3For purposes of this opinion, we refer to the amended Brief of July 18, 1995, simply as the Brief. We note
that the non-compliant Brief submitted May 9, 1995, has not been entered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007