Appeal No. 95-3374
Application No. 08/103,644
further consideration by the examiner as directed to a non-
elected invention. 2
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Swanson 4,440,228 Apr. 3, 1984
Hutchins et al. (Hutchins) 5,203,834 Apr. 20, 1993
The previously entered rejection of claims 26 through 52
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting has been withdrawn. See the Examiner's Answer, page 2,
line 1. This means to say that claims 50 and 52 no longer stand
rejected. The issue remaining for review is whether the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 26 through 49 and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hutchins, considered alone or in
combination with Swanson. This prior art rejection is reversed.
DISCUSSION
As correctly argued by appellants, neither Hutchins nor
Swanson discloses or suggests the imidazolium monomer (a) recited
in independent claim 26. Accordingly, neither Hutchins nor
Hutchins considered with Swanson constitutes sufficient evidence
2In the proffered amendment filed June 1, 1994 (Paper
No. 7), appellants proposed canceling non-elected claims 1
through 25. In the Advisory Action mailed June 10, 1994, the
examiner stated that "upon the filing of an appeal, the proposed
amendment will be entered." We observe, however, that the
amendment has not yet been physically entered, so that non-
elected claims 1 through 25 remain in the application.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007