Appeal No. 2005-0181
Application No. 09/781,631
concerned with organic substrates and that the composition is not
utilized in a CFA environment. Brief, page 9. On page 13 of the
answer, the examiner also points out that appellant does not
address some of the rejections.
Because appellant does not dispute that Usui discloses the
same composition as described in appellant’s claim 31, we support
the examiner’s rejection.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 31, 32, 34 and 35 as being
anticipated by Usui.
IX. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 41 as being
anticipated by or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Usui
This rejection involves the rejection of claim 41. As
discussed, supra, we affirmed the rejection of this claim under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness). As such, the
metes and bounds of appealed claim 41 is unclear and indefinite
to the extent that it is impossible to ascertain the propriety of
the grounds of rejection of appealed claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e)/103 over Tang. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165
USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63,
134 USPQ 292, 295-96 (CCPA 1962). Hence, we reverse this
rejection, pro forma.
In view of the above, we reverse, pro forma, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claim 41 as being anticipated by, or under
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious over
Usui.
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007