Appeal No. 1997-1219
Application 08/432,649
Kanda et al. (Kanda) 4,920,175 Apr. 24,
1990
(filed May 19, 1980)
Claim 7 stands rejected under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 as being based upon a disclosure which fails to
contain an adequate written description of the here claimed
invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sanfilippo in view of Kanda.
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer
respectively for a complete exposition of the opposing
viewpoints expressed by the appellants and the examiner
concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the § 112
rejection but not the § 103 rejection advanced by the examiner
on this appeal.
Concerning the § 103 rejection, we agree with the
appellants that the applied prior art contains no teaching or
suggestion of acrylic polymer particles "formed from a monomer
mixture comprising from about 0.2% to about 5%, by weight
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007