Appeal No. 1997-3528
Application No. 08/230,659
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments and evidence presented by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This
review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s rejections are
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse all of the
aforementioned rejections. The reasons for our determination
follow.
A. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
In rejecting claims 11, 13, 14, and 17 through 20 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner states
that “the specification as originally filed fails to provide
support for the language ‘to activate the article without
by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Lawandy (U.S. Patent 5,028,109); (2) the rejection of
claims 11-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Ducharme in view of W. E. Moerner et al.,
Photorefractivity in Doped Nonlinear Organic Polymers, SPIE
PROCEEDINGS 278 (1991); and (3) the rejection of claims 11,
13-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Schildkraut et al. (U.S. Patent 4,999,809). (Examiner’s
answer, p. 2.) In addition, the examiner has also withdrawn
the rejection of claim 13 on prior art grounds. (Id.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007