Ex parte MORADI-ARAGHI - Page 3




                 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