Ex Parte VAN DYKE - Page 2


                 Appeal No. 1995-2698                                                                                    
                 Application 07/660,807                                                                                  



                 Answer.  The first rejection (Examiner’s Answer, pages 4-7) appeared in the final                       
                 rejection.  The second rejection (Examiner’s Answer, pages 7-10) is a new                               
                 ground of rejection made in the Examiner’s Answer.  The heading for the first                           
                 rejection reads as follows:                                                                             
                        Claims 1-12, 18-20, 26 and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as                             
                        being unpatentable over Miana et al, Fournet et al (R and S newly cited) and                     
                        Ferrer Int SA in view of Mitscher et al, Neal et al (newly cited) and Applicants                 
                        acknowledgement all of record or newly cited.                                                    
                 The heading for the new ground of rejection reads as follows:                                           
                        Claims 1-12, 18-20, 26 and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as                             
                        being unpatentable over Fournet et al. (R and S newly cited, references                          
                        underlying the original Chemical Abstracts) in view of Neal et al, Riou et al                    
                        (newly cited), Applicants acknowledgement and Mitscher et al, all of                             
                        record or newly cited.                                                                           
                        The references underlying Fournet et al (R and S) are provided to clarify                        
                        the rejection.  Additionally, several references causing confusion as to the                     
                        Examiners position have been replaced with Riou et al. Rational [sic] used                       
                        in the rejection under 35 USC 103 is unchanged, but reformulated here to                         
                        simplify the issues and expedite prosecution.                                                    
                        At the time of the final rejection, the Fournet references relied upon by the                    
                 examiner appear to be citations from Chemical Abstracts.  Attached to a                                 
                 “Supplemental Brief on Appeal”  (Paper No. 20, September 27, 1993), are copies                          
                 of the translated full text Fournet articles.  It is not clear what the examiner                        
                 means by the phrase “(R and S newly cited)” in describing the Fournet                                   
                 references in the first ground of rejection since it appears that the examiner                          
                 relies upon the full text translations in the new ground of rejection in the                            
                 Examiner’s Answer.  Thus, it is not clear what Fournet references are “newly                            
                 cited” in regard to the first ground of rejection.  The same confusion exists to the                    
                                                           2                                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007