Appeal No. 1997-2209
Application No. 08/179,196
The grounds of rejection for our review in this appeal
are as follows:
(1) Claims 17, 23, 26, 31 and 32 stand rejected under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite;2
(2) Claims 1, 5-9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-33, and 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Urano in
view of Sinta and Murata, and further in view of Yamanaka; and
(3) Claims 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Urano in view of Sinta and Murata and
further in view of Yamanaka, as applied to claims 1, 5-9, 12,
13, 15, 16, 18-33 and 36, and further in view of Ueda.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
the specification, the claims, the applied prior art
references, and all of the arguments advanced by both parties.
As a consequence of our review, we are constrained to reverse
2The examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, of claim 23 for lacking proper
antecedent basis for the phrase “R is an alkyl group” and 10
claim 30 for being dependent on canceled claim 4. In
addition, the examiner withdrew the objection and rejection
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 set forth in
paragraphs 18 and 19 of the final Office action (answer, page
3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007