Appeal No. 2006-2982 Page 3
Application No. 10/458,112
Appellants rely upon the following extrinsic evidence submitted during
the prosecution on September 2, 2004:
• Murray et al., “Monodisperse 3d Transition-Metal (Co, Ni, Fe)
Nanoparticles and Their Assembly into Nanoparticle Superlattices”,
MRS Bulletin, December 2001, pages 985-991.
• O’Handley, R.C., “Modern Magnetic Materials, Principles and
Applications”, John Wiley & Sons, 2000, page 92.
• Wolfram Research website, “Magnetic susceptibility”, web page at:
http://scienceworld,wolfram.com/physics/MagneticSusceptibility.html,
August 24, 2004, 1 page.
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 11-17, 29 and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Rizzo.
2. Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Richter.
3. Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sun.
4. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Rizzo.
5. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Sun.
6. Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Sun in view of Rizzo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007