Ex Parte MALHOTRA - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1998-0189                                                                                          
              Application 08/196,933                                                                                        



                     This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1                           
              through 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 41, and 42.2                                                                     
                     Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and read as                           
              follows:3                                                                                                     
                     1.  A recording sheet for receiving printed images which comprises a substrate                         
              and an image receiving coating situated on at least one surface of the substrate, said                        
              entire image receiving coating comprising an additive material selected from the group                        
              consisting of purine compounds, pyrimidine compounds, benzimidazole compounds,                                
              imidazolidine compounds, urazole compounds, pyrazole compounds, triazole                                      
              compounds of the formula                                                                                      






                     2The examiner required appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 121 to elect an ultimate                            
              species.  Paper No. 10, mailed Oct. 4, 1995, page 1, paragraph 1.   Appellant elected 2-                      
              aminopyrimidine for the active material, and the substrate of transparent polymeric                           
              material.  See Paper No. 10,  page 1, paragraph 2.  (The examiner indicated that                              
              appellant elected 2-amidopyrimidine.  However, this is a typographic error, because in a                      
              previous election, the appellant elected 2-aminopyrimidine (Paper No. 3, filed Nov. 8,                        
              1994, page 2, first full paragraph); and the claims do not recite 2-amidopyrimidine.)                         
              Claims 5, 9, 11, 12 and 16 through 34 were withdrawn from consideration because they                          
              did not read on the elected species.  Appellant “confirmed” the election in Paper No. 11,                     
              filed Jan. 5, 1996, page 3, lines 26-29.                                                                      
                     Claims 6 and 15 have been allowed.  See Paper No. 18, mailed Feb. 4, 1997,                             
              page 3, paragraph 8.                                                                                          
                     3The Appeal Brief appendix version of claims 1, 2, 41, and 42 appears to be in                         
              error. The record copy of claims 1, 2, 41 and 42 do not recite the phrase “are hydrogen,                      
              alkyl, substituted alkyl, amino, mercaptyl, carboxyl, hydrazinyl, aryl, or substituted aryl,”                 
              but recite “are hydrogen, alkyl, mercapto alkyl, amino, mercaptyl, carboxyl, hydrazinyl,                      
              or aryl.”  See Paper No. 15, filed May 17, 1996.                                                              
                                                             2                                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007