Appeal No. 2005-1152
Application No. 10/202,616
Unger et al. (Unger) 5,830,430 Nov. 3, 1998
Hanes et al. (Hanes) 5,855,913 Jan. 5, 1999
Szoka, Jr. et al. (Szoka) 5,811,406 Sept. 22, 1998
Zuckermann et al. (Zuckermann) 6,251,433 June 26, 2001
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1-8, 24, 27-28, 32, 36-40 and 43-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Unger.
Claims 1-24, 32-40, 43 and 45-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for
obviousness over Hanes in view of Szoka.
Claims 25-31, 41-42 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for
obviousness over Hanes in view of Szoka in further view of Zuckermann.
We reverse these rejections.
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1-8, 24, 27-28, 32, 36-40 and 43-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Unger.
“It is well settled that a claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found
either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007