Ex parte CALTON et al. - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1996-1072                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/132,289                                                                                                                                            


                     19932                                                                                                                                                             
                     Nichols                             5,290,570      Mar.  1,                                                                                                       
                     19943                                                                                                                                                             
                     Chemical Abstracts No. CA115(13):134400g, abstract of Fed.                                                                                                        
                     Regist. 56(137), 32514-15, July 17, 1991 (EPA).                                                                                                                   
                     GAF brochure (GAF), “Specialty Products for Personal Care:                                                                                                        
                     Ganex  WP-660 Resin - New Water-Proofing Polymer” 1-8 (GAF®                                                                                                                                                      
                     Chemicals Corp. 1990).                                                                                                                                            
                                                                            THE REJECTIONS                                                                                             
                                Claims 1-5, 9, 11-15 and 19 stand rejected as follows:                                                                                                 
                     1) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement                                                                                                             
                     requirement, 2) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gallagher in view                                                                                                      
                     of Flashinski and GAF, and 3) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over                                                                                                          
                     Flashinski, Nichols or Bedlock, in view of Shih and EPA.4                                                                                                         
                                                                                   OPINION                                                                                             
                                We have carefully considered all of the arguments                                                                                                      



                                2 Continuation of application filed April 9, 1990.                                                                                                     
                                3Continuation of application filed November 29, 1990,                                                                                                  
                     which is a continuation-in-part of application filed May 30,                                                                                                      
                     1989.                                                                                                                                                             
                                4 The Jacquet et al., Bolich, Jr., Login, Metravers and                                                                                                
                     Duraback et al. secondary references relied upon in the final                                                                                                     
                     rejection (page 4) are not applied in the rejection in the                                                                                                        
                     examiner’s answer.  We consider these references to be                                                                                                            
                     withdrawn from the rejection.                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007