Appeal No. 2005-1290 3
Application No. 10/603,464
PRIOR ART REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are1:
Lamb 3,608,064 Sep. 21, 1971
Jang et al. (Jang) 4,894,236 Jan. 16, 1990
Brochner 894,001 Apr. 18, 1962
(Published British Patent Application)
Ozalvo et al (Ozalvo) WO 03/077664 A1 Sep. 25, 2003
(Published International Patent Application)
The Merck Index, 10th ed., page MISC-87 (1983) (hereinafter referred to as “Merck”).
OnlineConversion.com (Pressure Conversion)(unknown publication date). (hereinafter
referred to as “Online”)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Brochner and Ozalvo.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s Section 103
rejection is not well founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s Section 103
1 The examiner has not included Merk, Online, Lamb and Jang in the statement of rejection.
Normally, we do not consider the references not included in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970)(“Where a reference is relied on to support
a rejection, whether or not in ‘a minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively
including the reference in the statement of the rejection.”). However, even were we to consider them, our
determination below would not be altered for the reasons set forth infra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007