Appeal No. 1996-2336
Application 08/270,345
the mixture.
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims
2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Graiver.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2 and 12
over Graiver and Xinghua and of claims 1-3 and 12
over Graiver in view of Xinghua and Findlay
For the reasons given above, the methods recited in
claims 1-3 and 12 are unpatentable over Graiver. A discussion
of Xinghua and Findlay is not necessary to our decision.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of
claims 1-3 and 6-19 based on the enablement requirement and
claims 12-19 based on the written description requirement are
reversed. The rejections of claims 1 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Graiver and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of claims 2 and 3 over Graiver, claims 2 and 12-19 over
Graiver in view of Xinghua, and claims 1-3 and 6-19 over
Graiver in view of Xinghua and Findlay, are affirmed. The
affirmances are denominated as involving new grounds of
rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007