Appeal No. 2002-2283
Application No. 08/882,513
contained [sic] in the brief” (EA 2). To the contrary, the Appeal
Brief expressly states that “[t]here are no related appeals and/or
interferences involving this application or its subject matter”
(AB 1).
3. The Examiner’s Answer suggests that “[t]he rejection
of claims stand [sic] or fall [sic] together because appellant’s
brief does not include a statement that this grouping of claims
does not stand or fall together and reasons in support thereof”
(EA 4). To the contrary, the Appeal Brief explicitly states
(AB 5):
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 20, 27-28, and 30-31 may be
considered together.
Claims 5-8, 21-22, and 32 stand separately as
reciting dihaloalkane or dihaloalkene reagents which
include at least three carbon atoms separating the
halide substituents, a further feature that is neither
taught nor suggested by the cited reference.
Claims 26 and 29 stand separately as reciting bromine
and chlorine halide substituents, a further feature that
is neither taught nor suggested by the cited reference.
4. The Examiner’s Answer does not establish the full
scope and content of the prior art. The sole reference, over which
the patentability of the subject matter applicants’ claims stand
rejected, is an abstract of Japanese Kokai Patent Application
63-227552, i.e., CA 111:153338, accession number 1989:553338
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007