Appeal No. 2003-0855 Page 3
Application No. 09/147,675
teachings of Uszycka-Horawa,1 Jakupovic,2 and Linus Pauling;3 and (2) claims 3
through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jakupovic.2 In the
Examiner's Answer, however, the examiner does not repeat or refer to the former
rejection, based on a combination of references; only the latter ground of rejection is
maintained (Paper No. 28, § 10). Accordingly, as a matter of standard procedure, the
rejection of claims 3 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Uszycka-Horawa, Jakupovic, and Linus Pauling, has been
dropped. See Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System,
804 F.2d 659, 663, 231 USPQ 649, 651-52 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 933
(1987)(as a matter of standard procedure, rejection not "repeated or referred to" in
subsequent Office action(s) has been dropped).
The sole issue presented for review is whether the examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jakupovic.
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the appealed claims;
(2) applicant's Appeal Brief (Paper No. 27) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 29);
1 Uszycka-Horawa, PCT Application No. WO92/11280, July 9, 1992
2 Jakupovic et al. (Jakupovic), European Patent Application No. 0 262 108 A1
(March 30, 1988)
3 Linus Pauling, General Chemistry, Chapter 2, page 14, last paragraph and
page 15, lines 1-2 (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. 1947)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007