Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lowden in view of Slater, Patch, and
Hawley (The Condensed Chemical Dictionary).
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 17), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 11).2
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,3 and
2 A reply brief (Paper No. 18) was denied entry by the
examiner as being untimely (Paper No. 20). As per the telephone
call of April 3, 2002 initiated by Program and Resource
Administrator Craig Feinberg of the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, we are informed that counsel Huntley will not file
any petition regarding the denial of entry of the reply brief.
Thus, the reply brief is not before us for consideration.
3 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007