Appeal No. 2005-0192 Page 9
Application No. 09/809,021
alone. See In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978)
(Anticipation is “the epitome of obviousness.”).
Appellants’ arguments in response to this rejection are the same as in response
to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and have been adequately addressed above.
The rejection of claim 18 as obvious in view of either Allary or Lorne, combined with
Hanada, Brezniak, and Altshuler, is affirmed. Claims 19 and 35-38 fall with claim 18.
Other Issues
Appellants filed an Information Disclosure Statement on September 8, 2003,
which does not appear to have been considered by the examiner. On return of this
application, the examiner should review the IDS and treat is as appropriate under 37
CFR §§ 1.97 and 1.98.
Summary
The prior art reasonably appears to disclose a composition meeting the
limitations of claim 18 and Appellants have provided no evidence to the contrary. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 18 as both anticipated and obvious. The
remaining claims fall with claim 18.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007