Page 8
Appeal Number: 2005-2193
Application Number: 09/385,405
solvent are not inherently present in the starting material of Schmidt, the Examiner should revisit
the questions of written descriptive support and enablement.
OTHER ISSUES
The Examiner states in the Answer at page 12 that “[s]hould the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences find that the language in question has basis in the originally filed disclosure,
then the double patenting rejection [previously made] will have to be revisited.” Should
prosecution continue the Examiner should determine whether the double patenting rejection
should be reinstated.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain the rejection of claims 71-73, 75-81, and 83 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and the rejection of claims 71-83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 71-83 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. As all the claims remain rejected, we
affirm the decision of the Examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007