Appeal No. 1997-4290
Application No. 08/218,647
specific order. However, claims 20, 21 and 29 do not have proper antecedent basis
for the third stage of claim 18 to be followed by a chelation treatment/stage as
required in claims 20, 21 and 29.
Thus, prior to disposition of the application, the Examiner should determine
whether the claimed invention meets the requirements of the first and second
paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, based on the totality of the record, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence does not weigh in favor of obviousness.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY T. SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
JTS/gjh
Kratz, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007