Ex parte ABERSFELDER et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-3553                                                          
          Application 08/324,476                                                      



                    wherein said information carriers are peptide chains              
          having a composition from which the secondary information can be            
          retrieved, the peptide chains being incorporated into at least              
          portions of a vehicle coating.                                              
                    The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence            
          of obviousness are:                                                         
          Dillon                           4,243,734       Jan.  6, 1981              
          Schwartz et al. (Schwartz)       4,767,205       Aug. 30, 1988              
          Guinta et al. (Guinta)           5,083,814       Jan. 28, 1992              
          Butland                          5,360,628       Nov.  1, 1994              
          (filed Jan. 22, 1993)                                                       


                    The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
           103 as follows:                                                           
                    a) claims 1 through 4 as being unpatentable over Dillon           
          in view of Guinta;                                                          
                    b) claims 5 and 7 as being unpatentable over Dillon in            
          view of Guinta and Schwartz; and                                            
                    c) claims 6 and 8 as being unpatentable over Dillon in            
          view of Guinta and Butland.                                                 
                    Reference is made to the appellants’ brief (Paper                 
          No. 14) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15) for the                 
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with                
          regard to the propriety of these rejections.                                



                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007