Appeal No. 95-3989
Application No. 07/956,107
with radiation to form an abrasion-resistant, transparent,
stable antistatic coating for optical recording media.
Appealed claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. The appealed claims also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In addition,
appealed claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over either Sato or Yamamoto. Finally,
claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sato, Yamamoto and Keough.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we find that none of the examiner's
rejections are sustainable.
We consider first the rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. According to the
examiner, the claims are indefinite because "[t]he term
'monomer' is not clearly distinctive of the term 'prepolymer'
as used and disclosed by applicant (specification, page 9)"
(page 5 of Answer).
In making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, it is incumbent upon the examiner in the first
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007