Appeal No. 1998-2813
Application No. 08/463,203
polymers listed in claim 24, or wherein the polymer includes a
biodegradable latex as required in claim 25. Since we agree with
appellants, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 23/19, 24/19 or 25/19. 2
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's decision rejecting
claims 19, 31, 32/19 and 36/19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
clearly anticipated by Fink is affirmed. As regards the
examiner's rejection of claims 20, 22/20, 29, 30 and 33 through
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Fink or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fink, we note that the examiner's decision has been sustained
with respect to claims 29 and 30, 33/32/19, 34/32/19 and
35/34/32/19, but reversed as to claims 20, 22/20, 33/32/21,
34/32/21 and 35/34/32/21. The examiner's decision rejecting
claims 21, 22/21, 23 through 25, 32/21 and 36/21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fink has been reversed with
regard to claim 21 and all claims which depend from claim 21.
2 With respect to claim 23, while we see clear support in
claim 21 for "the walls" of claim 23, we find no proper
antecedent basis for "the walls" in claim 19, from which claim 23
also depends. During any further prosecution of this application
before the examiner, this issue should be addressed.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007