Appeal No. 2001-2443
Application 09/108,541
initial stage EO or EOP extraction. These essential steps in the claims are not discussed
by the Examiner, nor are they apparent from a review of the references.
Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 2-4, 6, 10, 15, 16, and 19-24 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maples in view of Carles or Ibister with or without Li, further in view of
Farley.
As the Farley reference does not correct the deficiencies of the rejection above,
we reverse this rejection for the same reasons noted above.
The Rejection of Claims 5 and 14 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Maples in view of Carles or Ibister with or without Li, further in view of Samuelson.
As the Samuelson reference does not correct the deficiencies of the first rejection
discussed above, we reverse this rejection for the same reasons noted in the discussion
of the first rejection above.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the Applicants regard as the invention, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 11-13, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Maples in view of Carles or Ibister with or without Li is
reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007