Appeal No. 93-3114
Application 07/825,465
We find that Maas reasonably appears to describe the
process applicant claims. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s rejections of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Maas and under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) because applicant
indicated by his signing of the Maas dissertation that he had
“examined a dissertation entitled THE IMMUNE RESPONSES OF MICE
AND CATTLE TO FUSOBACTERIUM NECROPHORUM presented by Synthea
Maas” prior to the June 7, 1990 filing date of his parent
application and that “it is worthy of acceptance” (Maas, the
signature and acceptance page). While applicant appears to
believe that Maas’ dissertation describes subject matter
outside the scope of the process presently being claimed on
appeal, we surmise that he is reading limitations of the
specification into the claims, which is improper. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
2. Rejection in view of Abe, Nelson, and Adam
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of the teachings of Abe, Nelson and Adam.
We affirm.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007