Appeal No. 94-3134
Application 07/848,884
now consider the above noted rejection to be improper with
respect to claims 23, 24 and 26. However, since the record is
not clear on this matter, we will treat the final rejection of
these claims as before us and hereby formally reverse it. The
examiner’s decision to reject claims 23, 24 and 26 over
Moradi-Araghi and Mumallah is erroneous. As correctly argued
by the
appellant in the sentence bridging pages 3 and 4 of the Brief
and conceded by the examiner in the penultimate sentence on
page 4 of the Answer, these references contain no teaching or
suggestion of aminobenzoic acid which is required by each of
the claims under consideration.
However, for the reasons which follow, we will sustain
the rejection before us as applied against claims 1 through
22, 25, 27 and 28.2
We agree with the examiner’s ultimate conclusion that it
would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art
to replace the aldehyde of Mumallah’s gel-forming composition
with an aldehyde-generating compound such as the here claimed
2 Because they have not been separately argued, dependent claims 2 through 22,
27 and 28 will stand or fall with independent claims 1 and 25. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007