Appeal No. 2002-1364 Page 3
Application No. 09/402,761
The Prior Art
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) 4,611,055 Sep. 9, 1986
The Rejection
The previously entered rejection of claims 11 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Yamamoto has been withdrawn (Examiner's Answer, Paper
No. 14, section (6)).
The question remaining is whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 11
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamamoto.
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 13) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 15); (3) the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14); and (4) the above-cited Yamamoto reference.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Discussion
According to the examiner, the process sought to be patented in claim 11 bears
close relationship to the process disclosed by Yamamoto. Specifically, the examiner
points to Example 2 of Yamamoto which discloses reacting a molten mixture of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007