Appeal No. 1999-2488
Application No. 08/841,027
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Buysch et al. (Buysch) 4,883,835 Nov. 28, 1989
Gosens et al. (Gosens) 5,204,394 Apr. 20, 1993
Yang et al. (Yang) 5,643,981 Jul. 1, 1997
(filed Nov. 1, 1994)
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang, Gosens and Buysch.2
We refer to the brief and to the answer (as well as to the
first office action mailed August 11, 1997 as paper no. 11 to
which the answer refers) for a complete exposition of the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the
examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain this
rejection.
On page 6 of the brief, the appellants state that “[t]he
following table illustrates the compositions disclosed by the
prior art references cited against the instant invention,
comparing the prior art compositions to the inventive
2As indicated by the appellants on page 7 of the brief, “the
claims [on appeal] all stand or fall together.” Accordingly in
assessing the merits of the above noted rejection, we will focus
primarily on independent claim 9 since, in most respects, it is
the broadest claim on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007