Ex Parte ROITMAN et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2002-1698                                                        
          Application No. 09/401,691                                                  

          polymer-forming active sites that can be joined by                          
          electrochemical polymerization and third and fourth polymer-                
          forming active sites that can be joined chemically in solution,             
          said first precursor polymer being soluble in a first solvent               
          whereas a polymer formed by electrochemical polymerization of               
          said first and second polymer-forming active sites is insoluble             
          in said first solvent, wherein said first precursor polymer                 
          comprises said monomers joined by said third and fourth polymer-            
          forming active sites, said first polymer comprising at least two            
          of said first precursor polymers linked by said first and second            
          polymer-forming active sites on monomers in those first precursor           
          polymers.                                                                   
               The references relied upon by the examiner in the section              
          102 and section 103 rejections before us are:                               
          Leising et al. (Leising)      5,949,188           Sep. 7,  1999             
          Andersson et al. (Andersson) 6,117,567            Sep. 12, 2000             
                                                 (filed May 16, 1995)                
               Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under the second paragraph             
          of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point out and                
          distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants regard             
          as their invention.                                                         
               Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being             
          anticipated by Leising.                                                     
               Finally, claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)             
          as being unpatentable over Leising in view of Andersson.                    
               We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for            
          a complete exposition of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the           
          appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted                   
          rejections.                                                                 
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007