Ex parte CLARK - Page 3
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte CLARK - Page 3
Appeal No. 2000-1980
Application No. 08/476,980
16, 1998 (Paper No. 24) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the appellant’s Appeal Brief filed August 13, 1998 (Paper No. 23) for the appellant’s
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 103
Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a single prior art reference, of each element
of the claim under consideration. W.L. Gore & Assoc. v.Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In
considering Kenyon and Janata, we agree with the appellant that neither reference
describes an article of the type presently claimed. Kenyon describes grafting p-nitro
styrene or p-nitrophenylacrylate to a polyaryl polymeric material (col. 1, lines 43-45).
However, Kenyon does not substitute the aryl groups present in the polymer chain.
Similarly, Janata grafts the hydrocarbon chain into the polymer article described. This
process, also, does not reasonably appear to result in an article wherein at least a portion
of the aryl groups present in the polyaryl polymer are substituted with a nitrogen containing
group. Thus, we conclude that neither Kenyon nor Janata explicitly or implicitly describe a
substance which would anticipate the presently claimed article.
The examiner presents no analysis which would indicate how Kenyon or Janata
would have made obvious the presently claimed article. Therefore, we reverse these
rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 27 - 29 and 31.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 3, 2007