Appeal No. 95-0055
Application No. 07/985,354
alone, optionally taken with appellant’s admission on page 9,
lines 12-17, of the specification regarding EPARCYLŽ (Answer,
page 2). Upon careful review of the record, including the2
respective positions of the examiner and appellant in the
Answer and the Brief, we reverse this rejection for reasons3
which follow.
OPINION
The biological activator of appealed claim 45 comprises
"particles of essentially vitreous materials and kaolinite."
The "essentially vitreous materials" of appealed claim 45
include zeolites (see appealed claim 46 or the specification,
the sentence bridging pages 3-4).
The examiner finds that a finely divided zeolite product
is specifically identified in the French reference (Answer,
page 3). Bavaveas discloses a biological activator
2The final rejection of claims 47-50 and 58-62 under the
first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been
withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendments and
response dated Dec. 20, 1993, Paper No. 25 (see the Advisory
Action dated Feb. 3, 1994, Paper No. 26).
3Appellant’s Reply Brief dated Sept. 6, 1994 (Paper No.
34), was refused entry by the examiner (Letter dated Sept. 19,
1994, Paper No. 35) and thus has not been considered in our
review.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007