Appeal No. 2005-0912
Application No. 10/233,459
procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of
unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of
novelty.”); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55, 195
USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to rejections II through IV, it appears to us
that the appellants are relying on the same arguments made
against rejection I. Accordingly, we affirm these rejections
for the same reasons discussed above.
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejections under: (i) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
of appealed claims 1 through 5, 7, and 10 as anticipated by
Mattoussi; (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claim 6 as
unpatentable over Mattoussi in view of Jenekhe; (iii) 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of appealed claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over
Mattoussi in view of Bawendi; and (iv) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
appealed claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over Mattoussi in view
of Murray.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007