Ex parte KUNIN - Page 2




          Appeal No. 94-1545                                                           
          Application 07/939,990                                                       
               Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  112, fourth                   
          paragraph.  Appellant concedes that this rejection is proper                 
          (Appeal Brief, page 4).  Therefore, we affirm the examiner's                 
          rejection of Claim 2 under  112.                                            
               Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102 as                      
          anticipated by Ghebre-Sellassie et al. (Ghebre-Sellassie),                   
          U.S. 4,814,354, patented March 21, 1989.  For the rejection under            
          this section, all claims stand or fall together (Appeal Brief,               
          page 4).  We reverse the examiner's rejection of Claims 1-7 under            
           102.                                                                       
                                      Discussion                                       
               Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter and             
          reads:                                                                       
               1.  A salt comprising the reaction product of                           
               nicotinic acid and a basic anion exchange resin                         
               having a degree of crosslinking with                                    
               divinylbenzene of less than about 4%, a maximum                         
               degree of crosslinking corresponding to a minimum                       
               moisture content of 50%, and a particle size in                         
               water in a swollen, chloride form ranging from                          
               about 0.03 to about 0.84 mm.                                            
               To sustain an examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.  102,               
          a prior art reference must itself sufficiently describe the                  
          claimed invention to have placed a person having ordinary skill              
          in the art in possession of it.  In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708,             
          15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  We hold that the examiner            
          clearly erred in finding that Ghebre-Sellassie placed the                    
                                           2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007