Ex parte CATES - Page 3





                 Appeal No. 1997-0221                                                                                                                   
                 Application 08/248,496                                                                                                                 


                 Moorman Manufacturing Co. (Moorman), “IGR Minerals,” date                                                                              
                 unknown;                                                                                                                               



                 Vit-A-Way, Inc. (Vit-A-Way), “Mineral-Vitamin Fortifier,” date                                                                         
                 unknown.1                                                                                                                              

                          Claims 3 through 6 stand rejected under the first                                                                             

                 paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 “as the specification, as                                                                                 

                 originally filed, fails to provide support for the invention                                                                           
                 as now claimed.” (Answer, page 4).   All of the claims on    2                                                                         

                 appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable                                                                            

                 over the “state of the art,” as exemplified by either ACCO or                                                                          
                 Moorman, in view of Hogan and Vit-A-Way (Answer, page 5).   We                                        3                                

                 reverse all of the examiner’s rejections for reasons which                                                                             

                          1  The Moorman and Vit-A-Way references with unknown publication dates were cited                                             
                 in appellant’s information disclosure statement dated June 10, 1994, Paper No. 2.  In                                                  
                 the examiner’s action dated June 13, 1995, Paper No. 6, the examiner noted that certain                                                
                 references were cited in the information disclosure statement without any publication                                                  
                 dates, assumed that these references were available as prior art, and requested any                                                    
                 information from appellant regarding the publication dates (paragraph 14).  However,                                                   
                 there is nothing in the record before us as to the publication dates of these                                                          
                 references.  Since appellant does not contest the availability of these references as                                                  
                 prior art, for purposes of this appeal we adopt the examiner’s assumption that these                                                   
                 references are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                                                           
                          2  The final rejection of claims 1-7 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112                                            
                 has been overcome in view of appellant’s response subsequent to the final rejection (see                                               
                 the amendment dated Jan. 16, 1996, Paper No. 9, and the Advisory Action dated Feb. 7,                                                  
                 1996, Paper No. 10).                                                                                                                   
                          3  The examiner applies Hawley as a “factual reference” to show the composition of                                            
                 “trona” as disclosed by Hogan (Answer, page 5).  Since appellant does not contest this                                                 
                 definition of “trona,” we accept the examiner’s finding as fact and no further                                                         
                 discussion of Hawley is necessary to this decision.                                                                                    
                                                                           3                                                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007