Appeal No. 95-2179
Application No. 07/994,536
claimed subject matter in light of the Georgalas disclosure of
Blend II and the Pellico disclosure of an antiseptic gel in
EXAMPLE 4.
Fourth, if the examiner determines that glycerin
polyacrylate does not read on Lubrajel, nevertheless, it would
appear that these ingredients are closely related. Again, we
recommend that the examiner reevaluate patentability of the
claimed subject matter in light of the Georgalas disclosure of
Blend II and the Pellico disclosure of an antiseptic gel in
EXAMPLE 4. If the examiner determines that glycerin
polyacrylate and Lubrajel are structurally related, but not
identical, the
foregoing passages of Georgalas and Pellico would nevertheless
be relevant in evaluating the patentability of claims 1
through 13 even if those passages do not constitute
anticipatory prior art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we reverse the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On return of this
application to the Examining Corps, we recommend that the
examiner step back and reevaluate patentability of the claimed
subject matter in light of the issues outlined above.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007