Appeal 2006-2524
Application 10/664,147
17, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (C.C.P.A. 1978); and In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d
1383, 1384, 213 USPQ 441, 442 (C.C.P.A. 1982). Accordingly, we
AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Navarrete. We additionally note that the evidence
submitted by Appellant with the Brief allegedly shows that lignins from a
grass source are structurally different from lignins derived from a wood
source (Br. 13). This issue is not relevant to our decision as discussed
above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
cam
HAMMER & HANF, P.C.
3125 Springbank Lane, Suite G
Charlotte, NC 28226
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: November 3, 2007