Appeal 2007-2133
Application 10/790,502
Vincent D. McGinniss, “Radiation Curing,” Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology, 20, 8-44-47, 853-55 (4th ed., New York, John Wiley
& Sons, 1996) (McGinniss).
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Br. 4):
claims 25 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicant regards as the invention (Answer 4);1
claims 25 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement (id. 3);
claims 29 through 31 and 36 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pellegri in view of Siebert (id. 4);
claims 25, 27, 28, 32, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pellegri in view of Siebert as applied, further in view of McGinniss (id.
5); and
claims 26 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pellegri in
view of Siebert, further in view of McGinniss as applied, and further in view
of Canfield (id. 6).
Appellants argue the claims in each of the first two grounds of
rejection as a group (Br. 5-7). Appellants group the product claims of the
third ground of rejection as claim 29, claims 30 and 31, claim 36, and claims
37 and 38, predominately arguing claim 29 (id. 7, 11, and 12). We note here
that claims 30, 31, 37, and 38 encompass substantially similar subject
matter. Appellants group the process claims of the fourth ground of
rejection as claim 25, claims 27 and 28, and claim 32, predominately arguing
claim 25 and permitting dependent claims 34 and 35 to stand or fall with
independent claim 32 (id. 13 and 14). Appellants argue the claims in the
1 The rejection of claims 36 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is withdrawn by the Examiner (Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013