Appeal No. 95-2245
Application No. 08,011,563
invention as is now claimed in the disclosure as originally
filed ; 2
(3) Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Quemere,
Nozue and Matijevic; and
(4) Claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Quemere, Nozue, Matijevic and
Hums.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and appellant in
support of their respective positions. For the reasons well
articulated by appellant in his Brief, we determine that all
of the examiner’s rejections are not well taken. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially
2We note that the examiner has objected to the
specification for including the content of U.S. Patent No.
4,784,841 which is not supported in the disclosure as
originally filed. However, we decline to comment on the
propriety of the examiner’s objection to the specification
inasmuch as it should be reviewed by way of petition. Compare
MPEP 608.04(c) (Rev. 3, July 1997). Note that the objection
can be overcome by deleting any reference to U.S. Patent No.
4,784,841.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007