Appeal No. 1996-3126
Application No. 08/300,586
§ 1.192(c)(7) as to the separate patentability of each, except
for claims 53 and 21. Since appellants' sole argument for
claims 53 and 21 refers to the arguments for claim 52, we will
consider claims 21, 52, and 53 together. Thus, we will treat
the claims according to the following six groups: (1) claims
21, 52, and 53, (2) claims 2 and 22, (3) claims 3 and 23, (4)
claims 5 and 25, (5) claims 35 and 54, and (6) claims 38 and
55, with claims 52, 2, 3, 5, 54, and 55, respectively, as
representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the anticipation rejection of claims
21, 52, and 53 and reverse the anticipation rejections of 2,
3, 5, 22, 23, 25, 35, 38, 54, and 55.
Appellants contend (Brief, pages 5-6) that Sokal's
disclosure teaches away from the claimed invention, and
therefore cannot anticipate the claims. Appellants refer to
the affidavit of Mr. Nathan O. Sokal (one of the inventors of
the Sokal patent), filed May 18, 1996, as support for their
position. We agree that Sokal's invention is contrary to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007