Appeal No. 95-3082
Application No. 08/117,546
1990). The examiner fails to present any evidence or
reasoning to support the conclusion that the “esters” of the
isomers in claim 4 of Hosaka must necessarily be phenol
esters, within the common meaning of this term (answer, page
4).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish that every limitation of appealed
claim 13 is “described” in Hosaka within the meaning of that
word in
35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See Gechter v. Davidson, supra, and In re
Arkley, supra. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 4 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Hosaka is reversed.
REVERSED
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007