Appeal No. 95-0460
Application 07/962,382
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. '' 102 and 103. We have
randomly reviewed several of these references on a cursory
basis and find that the same are clearly relevant to the
claimed invention. For example, it appears to us that the
antioxidant compounds and compositions containing the same as
disclosed by Knowles at least would have reasonably suggested
(e.g., col. 2, lines 10-37, and col. 2, line 64, to col. 3,
line 4), if not anticipated (e.g., col. 2, lines 48-49), the
antioxidant compounds and compositions of at least appealed
independent claims 1 and 37 to one of ordinary skill in this
art. In similar manner, the antioxidant compounds and
compositions containing the same disclosed by Filbey (e.g.,
col. 1, lines 19-24, col. 2, lines 1-18, and col. 6, lines 32-
33; cf. col. 5, line 61, to col. 6, line 16) and by Godin
(e.g., page 1, lines 34-45, page 2, lines 42-55) at least
would have reasonably suggested the antioxidant compounds and
compositions containing the same of these appealed claims to
one of ordinary skill in this art. Because of the large
number of references cited and submitted by appellants and the
differences between the appealed dependent claims, we have not
fully considered the references with respect to the claimed
invention and thus decline to exercise our authority to enter
new ground(s) of rejection under 37 CFR ' 1.196(b)(1993).
Thus, we remand the case to the examiner for consideration of
the references cited and submitted by appellants and to
augment the record with respect to the knowledge of those of
ordinary skill in this art as required.
We remand this application, via the Office of the Group
Director, for appropriate action in view of the above
comments.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007