Appeal No. 94-3812
Application 07/857,701
Kojima et al. (Kojima) 4,542,088 Sep. 17,
1985
Reilly, Jr. 4,576,975 Mar. 18,
1986
Bilkadi 4,885,332 Dec. 5, 1989
Lucey 5,180,757 Jan. 19,
1993
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 30 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to satisfy the written description
requirement of the statute with respect to the formula for the
unsaturated amide. Claims 30 and 34 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking an adequate written
description in the specification for the phrase "said monomers
are free of acryloxy silanes and epoxy silanes", and because
the formulae in claims 30 and 34 are not "described" in
appellants' disclosure. Claims 30 and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, because the claims set forth an
improper divalent -N- radical in the formulae in claims 30 and
34 and, because when "m" is 1.05, the claimed compound is not
a polymer as required by the claim. Claims 1 through 5, 7
through 11, 13 through 17, 30 and 34 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness double patenting
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007