Appeal No. 1997-2874
Application 08/219,160
Having reviewed the above-quoted passage, we are at a loss to understand why the examiner
believes that claims 1-7 and 15-24 do not comply with the statute. The examiner's reasoning is
incomprehensible; does not establish a prima facie case of indefiniteness (35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph); does not establish a prima facie case of failure to comply with the written
description or enablement requirements
(35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph); and, in our judgment, does not rise to the level of superficial
plausibility.
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs, is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Turning to the prior art rejections, we first note that the subject matter of this appeal was
previously before the Board in parent application 07/837,126. In the parent application,
another merits panel affirmed the rejection of all the appealed claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the same references cited by the examiner in this case. See Paper No. 14 of the parent
file (Appeal No. 94-0905, mailed February 8, 1994). We here reproduce claim 1, which was
subject to review in the parent application:
1. Hydroxamic acid polymers comprising hydroxamic groups and
carboxylic acid groups, wherein the carboxylic acid groups
constitute less than about 15% of the functional groups.
[emphasis added].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007