Appeal No. 2003-1911
Application No. 09/228,694
findings, conclusions and rebuttals presented by the examiner in
the Answer. We add the following brief comments for emphasis.
The examiner’s Section 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claims 23, 27 and 29 is hereby sustained summarily since this
rejection has not been contested by the appellants on the record
of this appeal (see page 13 of the Brief).
We also hereby sustain the examiner’s Section 102 rejection
of claims 17 and 18. As completely explained in the Answer, the
appellants’ argument that Japanese ‘137 “does not teach . . .
polymers having meta-hydroxyphenyl groups as Appellant[s] claims
[sic, claim]” (Brief, page 11) is factually incorrect, and the
argument that Japanese ‘137 “does not teach . . . polymers that
contain an acrylate acid labile group as recited in Appellant’s
[sic, Appellants’] independent claim 24" (Brief, page 12) is
irrelevant to the rejection under consideration of claims 17 and
18.
As for the Section 103 rejections, notwithstanding a full
consideration of the appellants’ arguments1 thereagainst, the
1It is appropriate to here observe that pages 14-20 of the
Brief contain comments regarding claims 1-23 and 25-34 which the
appellants seem to regard as arguments relating to the separate
patentability of these claims. However, these comments generally
constitute little more than a reiteration of the subject matter
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007