Appeal No. 2003-1169
Application 09/879,888
I.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection, the
examiner states that the compound recited in appellants’ claim 33
and the compound of Formula I in each of the Li references are
the same for the reasons explained on pages 3 and 4 of the
Answer.
In response, appellants state “[h]ow can a disclosure of a
compound, like that of the ‘l87 patent’s Formula I, anticipate a
composition, like that of present claim 33?” Appellants repeat a
similar position for each of the Li references. Brief, pages 3-
4.
In response, on page 6 of the Answer, the examiner states
that she did explain that each of the Li references anticipates
the composition set forth in claim 33 for the reasons provided on
pages 3-4 of the answer. We agree with the examiner’s position
and understanding of each of the Li references. Appellants do
not point to any differences between the compound recited in
claim 33 and the compound set forth in Formula I of each of the
Li references.
We therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 33.
II.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007