Appeal No. 1995-1539
Application No. 07/950,388
Under this circumstance, it cannot be said that the examiner
has demonstrated that the claim language involved is
considered indefinite. Accordingly, we reverse this ground of
rejection. We turn next to the § 102 rejections. The
examiner has rejected claims 1, 2 and 4 as anticipated by the
disclosure of Nader and claims 1 and 4 as anticipated by the
disclosure of Kvakovszky. “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every
limitation of a claim must identically appeal in a single
reference for it to anticipate the claim.” [citation
omitted]. Gecter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d at 1457, 43 USPQ2d at
1032.
Th Nader reference discloses reacting an acyloxystyrene
(protected phenol) with a strong base at a low temperature to
the corresponding phenolate (deprotected phenol). See column
2, lines 63-65, in conjunction with column 3, lines 11-15.
Suitable acyloxystyrenes (protected phenol) can “have from 1
to 4 carbon atoms in the acyl group.” See column 2, lines 66-
68. “Other substituents which do not interfere with the
process of the invention can [also] be present on the styrene
ring.” See column 2, line 68 to column 3, line 2. The
preferred acyloxystyrene, however, is 4-acetoxystyrene. See
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007