Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
error and a general statement that the errors arose without
deceptive intent . . . . ” Thus, we determine that the instant
reissue oaths or declarations meet the requirements of the new
rule for the reasons set forth by the appellants in their Brief.
Accordingly, we reverse this Section 251 rejection as well.
PRIOR ART REJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 103
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims
21 through 23, 25, 44 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hagel and Mikes.
We find that Hagel teaches using cellulose triphenyl carbamate as
a sorbent to determine its efficiency in a chromatographic
system. See pages 1 and 2. We find that the claimed separating
agent embraces cellulose triphenyl carbamate. See appellants’
claim 25. We find that Hagel teaches that the cellulose
triphenyl carbamate is superior in terms of separating certain
components than amorphous cellulose triacetate. See page 2. We
find that this superior sorbent is in the form of particles,
i.e., sieve fractions 90-56 micrometers.6 See page 1. We find
that these particles (sieve fractions) necessarily include beads
since they are produced in a similar manner as that (filtering)
6 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should
include claim 24 in this rejection as Hagel fully describes the
particle size recited in claim 24.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007