Appeal No. 95-3647
Application No. 08/169,782
regard as their invention.2 Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fong in view
Anderson and Candau. In addition, claim 3 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the stated combination
of references in further view of Von Euler-Chelpin.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. However, we fully concur with the examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 1-9
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. According to the
examiner, the language "stable, gel-free" of claim 1 is ambiguous
and confusing since page 4 of appellants' specification states
that the claimed microdispersion "may contain gelled polymer."
2 The examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph (see page 2 of the Answer).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007