Appeal No. 1999-0963 3
Application No. 08/787,189
1
filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 through 15 and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ugelstad.
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 through 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ziolo ‘756.
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 through 17, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ziolo ‘866, in view of Ziolo ‘756
and Ugelstad.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the examiner that the rejections of the claims under Section
112, first paragraph and Sections 102(b) and 103(a) over Ugelstad alone or in
combination with the Ziolo references are well founded. Accordingly, we affirm these
rejections essentially for the reasons set forth in the Answer and for the reason which
follow. We agree with the appellants that the rejection under Section 103(a) over Ziolo
‘756 is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
1The rejection of claims 1 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been withdrawn.
Claim 5 which was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been cancelled. New
matter objections to claim 17 have been withdrawn.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007