Appeal No. 1997-1520
Application No. 08/365,464
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson in view of Ito. Also, claims 3
and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson in
view of Ito and Ohlson. In addition, claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Stephenson in view of Ito and Crawford.
Appellants submit at pages 4 and 5 of the brief that all the appealed claims stand or
fall together with respect to each separate prior art rejection.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments for patentability.
However, with the exception of the examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 11 under § 103,
we find no error in the examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, with the noted exception, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 13 under §
102 over Stephenson.2
We fully concur with the examiner that Stephenson discloses a substrate material
which has a dye, Methylene Blue, bound to the substrate by a binder, i.e., an
2Since all the claims rejected under § 102 stand or fall together, we will limit our discussion to
claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007