Appeal No. 1996-2910
Application 07/825,488
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Van Lommen et al. (Van Lommen) 4,654,362 March 31, 1987
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Claims 20 through 26 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) and (b) as
described by Van Lommen (Paper no. 14, February 15, 1994), but both rejections were
expressly withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (page 3).
In the final rejection, claims 20 through 26 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Van Lommen together with Van de Water.1 In their Brief,
appellants argued that Van de Water “was not a proper reference because the Van de
Water et al. article was published [after] . . . the filing date of their parent application
Serial No. 07/172,747" and pointed to portions of the parent disclosure that supported
the claims on appeal (Brief, pages 12 through 14). The examiner continued the
rejection in the Examiner’s Answer without addressing appellant’s argument. Following
an exchange of Reply Briefs (paper nos. 23 and 26) and Supplemental Examiner’s
Answers (paper nos. 25 and 27), the examiner apparently conceded the issue
(“Appellant has provided information indicating the Van de Water et al publication was
issued after the effective date of the parent application . . . The Van de Water et al
teaching . . . is not required to obviate the presented claims”). See the Supplemental
1 Van de Water et al., Chem Abstracts No. 110:50943v (1989).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007