Appeal No. 2000-0812 Page 4
Application No. 08/989,469
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Vrancken et al. (Vrancken) 4,004,924 Jan. 25,
1977
Haugh et al. (Haugh) 4,496,652 Jan. 29,
19851
Coppens et al. (Coppens) 5,273,858 Dec.
28, 1993
Verburgh et al. (Verburgh) WO 94/18005 Aug. 18,
1994
(International Application)
Claims 11 through 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vrancken in view of
Appellants’ admission of prior art and Coppens. Claims 17 and
19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Vrancken in view of Appellants’ admission of prior art
and Coppens in combination with Verburgh. 2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the Examiner and Appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14,
1The Examiner cites Haugh in the answer to demonstrate
that homodispersity of Coppens is also known as
monodispersity.
2We note that the rejection of claims 14, 15 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as set forth in the final rejection
(Paper No. 6, mailed March 4, 1999, has been withdrawn by the
examiner subsequent to entry of amendments to claims 14 and 19
(papers No. 8 and 11, filed May 4, 1999 and August 4, 1999,
respectively).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007