Appeal No. 1996-0214
Application 07/755,603
48, 49, 56-58, 65-67 and 71-90 over Le Suer in view of Cullen
and Palmer.2,3
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the
aforementioned rejections are not well founded. Accordingly,
we reverse these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of the elements of the claim must be
found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found.
v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellants’ claims require that the hydrocarbyl
substituted dicarboxylic acid producing material has a
2 Le Suer was erroneously omitted from the statement of
the rejection in the examiner’s answer (page 7).
3The rejections of claims 27, 44 and 79 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, have been withdrawn (answer, page 3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007