Appeal No. 95-3608
Application 07/960,420
composition is prepared without addition of
thickeners.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Koch et al. (Koch) 4,148,762 Apr. 10, 1979
Desai 4,490,355 Dec. 25, 1984
Ploog et al. (Ploog) 4,670,253 Jun. 02, 1987
Ritter et al. (Ritter) 4,900,544 Feb. 13, 1990
In the examiner's answer (paper no. 13), page 5, the
examiner entered a new ground of rejection of appellants'
claims predicated on the enablement requirement of 35 USC §
112, first paragraph. That rejection, however, was withdrawn
in the supplemental answer (paper no. 17), page 1. The issue
remaining for review is whether the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 14 under 35 USC §
103 as unpatentable over "Ploog or Ritter in view of Koch and
Desai" (examiner's answer, paper no. 13, page 3).
Opinion
On consideration of the record, including the main brief,
the reply brief, the first and second supplemental reply
briefs, the examiner's answer, and the first and second
supplemental answers, we reverse the rejection under 35 USC §
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007