Ex Parte LUBOWITZ et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 1999-1335                                                       
          Application No. 08/463,437                                                 


               The subject matter on appeal relates to a multidimensional            
          polyester oligomer of a particular general formula.  Further               
          details of this appealed subject matter are recited in                     
          illustrative claim 47 reproduced below:                                    
                   47.  A multidimensional polyester oligomer of the                 
               general formula:                                                      
                                   Ar-(Q)w                                           
               wherein Ar = an aromatic hydrocarbon radical of                       
                              valence w;                                             
               w =            an integer greater than or equal to 3;                 
                              and                                                    
               Q =            a hydrocarbon radical that includes at                 
                              least one ester linkage and a terminal                 
                              crosslinking end-cap radical.                          
               The examiner relies on the following reference as evidence            
          of unpatentability under the judicially created doctrine of                
          obviousness-type double patenting:                                         
          Lubowitz et al.              5,175,233           Dec. 29, 1992            
          ('233 patent)                                                              
               Claims 47 through 57, 64 through 66, and 68 through 71 on             
          appeal stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of             
          obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1            
          through 14 of the '233 patent.  (Examiner’s answer, page 5.)               
               We affirm the aforementioned rejection.3                              


                                                                                    
          (Advisory actions of April 29, 1998 and August 18, 1998, papers 14 and     
          22, respectively.)                                                         
               3   The appellants state: "Each claim stands separately;              
          arguments for the patentability of each claim appear in the Argument       
          section."  (Appeal brief, p. 6.)  To the contrary, we do not find any      
          specific arguments for the separate patentability of each claim either     
          in the appeal brief or reply brief.  We therefore limit our discussion     
          to representative claim 47.  See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).              

                                          2                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007