Appeal No. 95-1364
Application No. 07/919,287
3. The subject matter of claims 13-15 and 23-30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as
failing to be supported by an enabling disclosure;
2
4. The subject matter of claims 1, 5-9, 12-15, 21, 23-28 and 31-36 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as including subject matter which is not supported by an enabling
disclosure;
5. The subject matter of claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-17, 21, 30, and 31-36 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by either of the following references:
Chemical Abstract Bogdanova et al. (Bogdanova) 1970
73:129328z
Chemical Abstract Grinev et al. (Grinev) 1976
85:56546e
6. The subject matter of claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-17 and 23-26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the combination of Bogdanova and Grinev and the following
references:3
Chemical Abstract Thiel et al. (Thiel) 1976
84:160055j
US Paten t Lavie et al. (Lavie) February 6,
4,898,891 1990
2 This rejection was actually expressed by the examiner as two separate rejections. Claims 34-36
were subject to only one of the two rejections. Because of our disposition of the rejections we do not have to
distinguish between the two grounds.
3 We note that the examiner’s statement and discussion of the rejection refers to a Leach et al.
reference. Examiner’s Answer, p. 8. However, this reference is not listed on page 2 of the Answer setting out the
prior art relied upon, a copy of the reference could not be located in the record, nor were we able to find it listed on
the PTO Forms 892 and 1449 of record.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007