Appeal No. 95-2683
Application No. 07/883,912
adjudicated and might have been adjudicated. The cases cited
by appellants, e.g., Ex parte Tygat, 225 USPQ 907 (Bd. App.
1985) and Ex parte Kroekel, 230 USPQ 191 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1986), stand for the proposition that parties to an
interference cannot reinstitute matters that were adjudicated
or might have been adjudicated in a prior interference
proceeding, but such cases place no prohibition on the PTO to
reopen prosecution of any application before issuance,
including the applications of winning parties in an
interference. Appellants have cited no legal authority to
support the principle that the PTO is estopped from reopening
prosecution and entering a new ground of rejection in an
application that prevailed in an interference, and we know of
no such authority.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims
11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the basis
that there is no descriptive support for the claim language
"interpolymerizing ethylene with an alpha olefin CHR=CH2
wherein R is a saturated aliphatic radical with 2 or more
carbon atoms or a cycloaliphatic radical" (claim 11) and
"interpolymerizing ethylene with styrene C H CH=CH " (claim
6 5 2
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007