Appeal No. 95-5097
Application No. 08/072,807
otherwise require the presence of a grafted group (Brief, page
13) is not persuasive for reasons noted above regarding the
interpretation of the scope of appealed claim 10. Similarly,
appellants’ comments regarding the scope of the claim and the
question of infringement (Brief, pages 12-13) are not
persuasive for reasons set forth above regarding claim
interpretation. See Gechter v. Davidson, supra.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that all of the
limitations of appealed claim 10 are described by the total
disclosure of Yu within the meaning of § 102. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 10-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Yu is affirmed.
Appellants do not contest the rejection of claims 15 and
17 under § 103 as obvious over Yu in view of Keuerleber (e.g.,
see the Reply to Examiner’s Answer, page 4). Accordingly, we
affirm pro forma the rejection of claims 15 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yu in view of Keuerleber for
the reasons set forth by the examiner on page 3 of the Final
Rejection (Paper No. 5).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007