Ex parte MALHOTRA et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-2308                                                        
          Application 08/504,266                                                      


          bis(trichloromethyl) sulfone, N-hydroxymethyl-N-methyl                      
          dithiocarbamate salts, 2-mercapto benzothiazole salts,                      
          mixtures thereof, or a mixture containing a quaternary                      
          ammonium salt and one or more of 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-                       
          isothiazolin-3-one, 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one, 2-                       
          (thiocyanomethylthio) benzothiazole, bis (trichloromethyl)                  
          sulfone, N-hydroxymethyl-N-methyl dithiocarbamate salts, or 2-              
          mercapto benzothiazole salts.                                               
                                    THE REFERENCE                                     
          Vieira et al. (Vieira)          5,073,448         Dec. 17,                  
          1991                                                                        
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13-16, 20-24, 26-28, 30 and 33-35                
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                  
          over Vieira in view of appellants’ admissions in the                        
          specification.                                                              
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered all of the arguments                      
          advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with the                  
          examiner that the invention recited in appellants’ claims 3,                
          4, 6, 7, 9, 13-16, 20-24, 26-28, 30 and 33-35 would have been               
          obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of                  
          appellants’ invention over the applied prior art.                           
          Accordingly, we affirm the aforementioned rejection.  Under                 

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007