Appeal No. 1997-2010
Application No. 08/332,671
1982). These rejections were withdrawn in view of applicants’
arguments (see page 4, Final Rejection, Paper No. 5, dated
Sept. 6, 1995). However, upon the return of this application
to the jurisdiction of the examiner, the examiner should
review Albright and Zama, and compare the scope of the claimed
subject matter with the disclosure and teachings of Albright
and Zama. The examiner should note that Albright and Zama are
directed to the same process recited in the Jepson-type
preamble of appellants’ claims and both references teach the
optional use of liquid hydrocarbon solvents (see Albright,
column 4, lines 45-49; Zama, column 4, lines 21-22). Although
neither Albright nor Zama disclose examples directed to liquid
hydrocarbon solvents, the examiner should consider that the
examples of a reference are not the only teaching but all of a
reference is available for what it clearly teaches. In re
Widmer, 353 F.2d 752, 757, 147 USPQ 518, 523 (CCPA 1965). The
examiner should also consider the totality of the record,
including the disclosure and teachings of the references
weighed against appellants’ arguments and evidence of
unexpected results (see Examples 6-10 with Runs 6-11 on page 8
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007