Appeal 2007-3962
Application 10/005,846
The Appellants rely upon the following evidence in rebuttal:
Robert E. Kesting, Synthetic Polymer Membranes, A Structure Perspective
250-261 and 290-97 (2d ed. 1985).
Previously, the Examiner had rejected claims 1-3 and 6-11 solely
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kondo, and claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, alternately, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kondo
(Answer of July 20, 2005). After the Panel Remand of September 8, 2006,
the Examiner modified the rejections so that all claims, claims 1-11, were
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kondo (Answer of
November 3, 2006 at 4). A further Remand was necessary to show
authorization by the Technology Center Director or his/her designee of the
new ground of rejection (Remand of May 9, 2007). The Examiner issued
another Answer on June 20, 2007. Appellants question whether this latest
Answer contains the necessary authorization of the new ground of rejection
(Reply Br. 21). We note that, such authorization is shown by the signature
of the Quality Assurance Specialist, the Director designee for Technology
Center 1700 (Answer of June 20, 2007 at 8). Therefore, this appeal is now
in condition for our review.
Appellants now appeal from the rejection of claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kondo (Reply Br. of June 29, 2007).
Appellants present separate arguments for claims 1, 8, and 9. Therefore, we
consider the issues separately for each of these claims, taking into
consideration the Examiner’s contentions presented in the Answer of June
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013