Appeal No. 94-4291
Application No. 07/627,009
All of the claims on appeal are rejected as follows:3
(1) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Eckberg
in view of Drahnak and further in view of Gruber or
McDowell;
(2) unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over the claims of Boardman in
view of Eckberg; and
(3) provisionally unpatentable under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of
the '904 application in view of Drahnak.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of
these rejections.
The section 103 rejection
As correctly observed by the appellants, Eckberg fails to
disclose the specific catalyst defined by the appealed claims.
Nevertheless, Drahnak explicitly teaches effecting
hydrosilation reactions of the type under consideration with
3The appealed claims will stand or fall together; see
page 9 of the brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007