Appeal 2007-0693
Application 10/188,519
1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 as follows: (1) claims 5, 10, 15,
2 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 (written description requirement); (2)
3 claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2; (3) claims 1-4 and 11
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
5 and (4) claims 5-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Examiner’s
6 Answer, entered September 1, 2006, at 2-5.)
7 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
8 appeal is:
9 Boer et al. (Boer) US 5,656,393 Aug. 12, 1997
10 The Examiner contends that:
11 (1) claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 violate the written description
12 requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, because “[t]he
13 claims recite the binder comprises –COO- Na+ or –COO-
14 K+, groups which is not enabled by the specification,”
15 and “these groups are part of an intermediate product to
16 obtain the binder” rather than the binder itself
17 (Examiner’s Answer 2-3);
18 (2) claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 are indefinite because these
19 claims improperly broaden the claims from which they
20 depend (id. at 3);
21 (3) claims 1-4 and 11 are anticipated by or, alternatively,
22 would have been obvious in view of Boer because the
23 reference teaches the claimed invention with sufficient
24 specificity (id. at 3-4); and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013