Appeal No. 2005-0151
Application No. 09/615,305
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Martin et al. (Martin) 5,891,468 Apr. 6, 1999
Pluyter et al. (Pluyter) 6,008,184 Dec. 28, 1999
Wooley et al. (Wooley) WO 97/49387 Dec. 31, 1997
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1, 10, 12, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Pluyter.
II. Claims 1, 10, 12, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Martin.
III. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, 16-20 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wooley alone, or in combination with Martin.
We have carefully considered the respective positions of both the examiner and
the appellants and find ourselves in substantial agreement with that of the appellants.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Discussion
I. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
The examiner argues that claims 1, 10, 12, 17 and 19 are anticipated by Pluyter’s
disclosure of vesicles containing triblock polymers A-B-A wherein “A” is a water soluble
polymer and “B” is a water insoluble polymer. Answer, p. 3. We find the examiner’s
position unsustainable.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007