Ex parte BILKADI - Page 3




          Appeal No. 94-3812                                                          
          Application 07/857,701                                                      
               colloidal inorganic particles embedded in a radiation                  
               cured crosslinked polymer matrix of a polymer formed from              
               the cure of monomers comprising polyethylenically                      
               unsaturated amide of acrylic acid.                                     
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant noted this appeal on October 18, 1993 (Paper                 
          Number 20).  His brief was filed on December 27, 1993 (Paper                
          Number 22).  The examiner filed his Answer on February 17,                  
          1994 (Paper Number 23).  In his Answer, the examiner included               
          a statement of the outstanding grounds of rejection,                        
          specifically: (1) Claims 30 and 34 stand rejected under 35                  
          U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, based on several                   
          different theories; (2) claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 13                
          through 17, 30 and 34 stand rejected under the judicially                   
          created doctrine of obviousness double patenting; and, (3)                  
          claims 1, 13, 30 and 34 stand rejected as being unpatentable                
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103 from Kojima et al. considered with                    
          Dessauer and Aoyama et al.  Additionally, the examiner entered              
          a new ground of rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11,              
          13 through 17, 30 and 34 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.              
          § 103.  Appellant was given two months from the date of the                 
          Answer in which to file a reply to the new ground of                        
          rejection.  The examiner also noted in his Answer that the                  

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007