Ex parte FRIES et al. - Page 3




               Appeal No. 1997-3643                                                                                                
               Application No. 08/484,047                                                                                          


               unsaturated fatty acid having an iodine number from 120 to 190 and an alkyd resin having a hydroxyl                 

               number from 40 to 260 and an acid number of less than 11.                                                           


                                                         The References                                                            

                       The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims             

               are:                                                                                                                

               Savageau et al.                       3,772,171                      Nov. 13, 1973                                  
               (Savageau)                                                                                                          
               Uhlemayr et al.                       4,383,860                      May  17, 1983                                  
               (Uhlemayr)                                                                                                          
                                                         The Rejections                                                            

                       (1)    Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                          

               Savageau, U.S. Patent No. 3,772,171 in view of Uhlemayr, U.S. Patent No. 4,383,860.                                 

                       Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant                 

               regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 47, mailed                          

               December 11, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief              

               (Paper No. 46, filed August 12, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                   



                                                             Opinion                                                               

                       We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the examiner                   

               and agree with appellants that the aforementioned rejections is not well founded.  Accordingly, we                  

                                                                3                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007