Appeal No. 94-0822
Application No. 07/801,992
aqueous dispersion finds utility in compositions, such as
paints.
Appealed claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Martin. In addition, claims 1-10, 12-25 and 27-562
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pons. Also, claims 1-10, 12-25,3
27-37 and 57-61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Visca.4
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's prior
art rejections. However, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 38 under § 112, fourth paragraph.
2The Examiner's Answer, at page 6, improperly states
that claims 20-30 stand rejected under § 102/§ 103 over
Martin. However, the Examiner's Supplemental Answer, at page
2, repeats the issue stated at page 2 of the Answer that
claims 29 and 30 are rejected over Martin.
3The Examiner's Answer, at page 7, improperly states the
rejection over Pons as including claims 1-10, 12-25 and 26-27.
4The Examiner's Answer, at page 8, continues the
misstatement of the claims rejected.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007