Appeal No. 2005-1538
Application No. 09/950,654
Claims 1-5, 10-19, and 24-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Seltzer in view of Jewell.
To the extent that any one claim is argued with reasonable
specificity regarding its patentability, we consider such claim
in this appeal. We therefore consider claim 1 in this appeal.
See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s brief filed on
December 10, 2004, the examiner’s answer, and the evidence of
record. This review has led us to the following determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 10-19 and 24-
26 as being obvious over Seltzer in view of Jewell
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 2-3 of the answer.
Appellant’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3-11 of the brief. Beginning on page 5 of the brief,
appellant points out that Seltzer is discussed in the
specification. Appellant argues that Seltzer applies nitroxides
as coatings on finished paper, and that there is no description
of attaching the nitroxides to pulp via a primary or secondary
amino group. Brief, page 5.
In response, beginning on page 3 of the answer, the
examiner correctly points out that on page 65 of Seltzer,
Seltzer teaches that the instant additive system (which includes
the nitroxides) can be added to pulp or paper at a number of
places during the manufacturing or processing operations. On
page 65, beginning at line 5, Seltzer discloses a detailed list
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007