Appeal No. 1997-0844
Application No. 08/269,979
Claims 18 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Zibrida (Answer, page 2). Claim 25
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Davister in view of Zibrida (Answer, page 3). We affirm the 1
examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. §§
102(b)/103 over Zibrida for the reasons stated in the Answer
and reasons stated below. We reverse the examiner’s rejection
of claim 25 for reasons stated below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection of Claim 18
We agree with the examiner’s analysis that claim 18 is
recited in product-by-process format and therefore a rejection
under §§ 102/103 is indicated where the prior art discloses a
product that reasonably appears to be either identical with or
only slightly different than the product claimed. In re
1The final rejections under the first and second
paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been overcome by
appellants’ amendment dated Jan. 11, 1996, Paper No. 12, as
stated in the Advisory Action dated Jan. 31, 1996, Paper No.
13. The final rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Davister in view of Zibrida has been
withdrawn on page 2 of the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007