Appeal 2007-0686
Reexamination Control 90/004,812
Application 09/810,650
R1SO2CSO2R2
║
N2
wherein R1 and R2 are either both cyclic hexyl (claims 8 and 10) or both
branched butyl (claims 9 and 11), i.e., a specific compound and a narrow
subgenus. The Examiner relies on a single reference in her rejections:
Pawlowski US 5,338,641 Aug. 16, 1994
(filing date Sep. 7, 1990)
Issues2
Claims 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Pawlowski (Answer 5, issued July 26, 2006). Claims 9 and
11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pawlowski (Answer, 6). The dispositive question before us is whether
Appellants are entitled to 35 U.S.C. § 119 benefit of the filing date of
Japanese patent application 2-019614, thereby antedating Pawlowski as a
reference and rendering the rejections moot.
Discussion
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by
Appellants as set forth in their Brief and Reply Brief, filed April 27, 2006
2 Appellants' Brief presents arguments seeking to expunge papers from the
record (Appeal Br. 12). This issue relates to petitionable subject matter
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.59 and not appealable subject matter. See Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure, § 1002.02 (b) (eighth edition, revision 5,
August 2006).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013