Appeal No. 1996-0683
Application 08/116,938
Pursuant to the restriction requirement set forth by the
examiner in the Office action dated January 24, 1994 (Paper
No. 4), appellants elected one of the species recited in claim
1 (the Response dated February 23, 1994, Paper No. 5). This 1
species is specifically defined in claim 7 which is reproduced
below:
7. The compound of Claim 1 which is CF CF CH CF CF .
3 2 2 2 3
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner are:
Zhanxun C. et al. (Zhanxun I), “Esca Characterization of
Plasma-Polymerized Tetrafluoroethylene (I),” Adv. Low-Temp.
Plasma Chem. Technol. Appl., 2, pp. 265-273 (1988).
Zhanxun C. et al. (Zhanxun II), “Esca Characterization of
Plasma-Polymerized Tetrafluoroethylene (I),” 4th Proc. Annual.
Int. Conf. Plasma Chem. Technol., pp. 173-179 (1989).
The references of record relied upon by appellants are:
Miller, W. T. et al. (Miller), “Substitution and Addition
Reactions of the Fluoröölefins: IV. Reactions of Fluoride Ion
1Appellants request that “upon allowance of Claim 1,
Claims 2 through 6 and 8 be also allowed as [they recite]
species of the Claim 1 invention...” See Brief, page 5. This
request is inappropriate since claims 2 through 6 and 8 are
not properly before us. Note also that our review is limited
to the propriety of the examiner’s rejection with respect to
the elected species recited in claim 1, i.e., claim 7. The
remaining non-elected species recited in claim 1 are also not
properly before us.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007