Ex Parte Bohling et al - Page 3


         Appeal No. 2003-0715                                                       
         Application No. 09/873,806                                                 

              resin from step (b) with 0.4 to 5 grams, per kilogram                 
              of hydrogen-form weak acid cation exchange resin, of                  
              an antimicrobial agent selected from one or more of                   
              peroxides, (C2-C3)alcohols and inorganic chloride                     
              salts.                                                                
              The examiner relies on the following prior art references             
         as evidence of unpatentability:                                            
         Nagai et al.             4,245,053           Jan. 13, 1981                 
              (Nagai)                                                               
         Ballard et al.           5,900,146           May  04, 1999                 
              (Ballard)                                                             
         Kubota et al.            5,954,965           Sep. 21, 1999                 
              (Kubota)                                                              
              Claims 1 through 6, 9, and 10 on appeal stand rejected                
         under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ballard and Nagai.           
         (Examiner’s answer mailed Sep. 4, 2002, paper 14, pages 5-7.)              
         Correspondingly, claims 7 and 8 on appeal stand rejected under             
         35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ballard, Nagai, and                
         Kubota.  (Id. at page 7.)                                                  
              We affirm these rejections.2                                          

                                                                                   
              2  The appellants submit that “[c]laims 1-10 stand or fall            
         together.”  (Appeal brief, p. 3.)  We interpret this statement             
         to mean that the claims in each of the two grounds of rejection            
         stand or fall together; that is, claims 1-6, 9, and 10 stand or            
         fall together and claims 7 and 8 stand or fall together.                   






                                         3                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007