Ex parte AHMED et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 1998

08103644 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 9, 1993. According1
to appellants, this application is a division of Application No.
07/873,135, filed April 24, 1992, now U.S. Patent No. 5,270,382,
issued December 14, 1993.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte IQBAL AHMED, HENRY L. HSIEH
and AHMAD MORADI-ARAGHI
________________
Appeal No. 95-3374
Application No. 08/103,6441
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before WINTERS, METZ and HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINTERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal was taken from the examiner's decision rejecting
claims 26 through 52. Claims 1 through 25, which are the only
other claims remaining in the application, stand withdrawn from
Appeal No. 95-3374
Application No. 08/103,644
In the proffered amendment filed June 1, 1994 (Paper 2
No. 7), appellants proposed canceling non-elected claims 1
through 25. In the Advisory Action mailed June 10, 1994, the
examiner stated that "upon the filing of an appeal, the proposed
amendment will be entered." We observe, however, that the
amendment has not yet been physically entered, so that non-
elected claims 1 through 25 remain in the application.
-2-
further consideration by the examiner as directed to a non-
elected invention. 2
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Swanson 4,440,228 Apr. 3, 1984
Hutchins et al. (Hutchins) 5,203,834 Apr. 20, 1993
The previously entered rejection of claims 26 through 52
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting has been withdrawn. See the Examiner's Answer, page 2,
line 1. This means to say that claims 50 and 52 no longer stand
rejected. The issue remaining for review is whether the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 26 through 49 and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hutchins, considered alone or in
combination with Swanson. This prior art rejection is reversed.
DISCUSSION
As correctly argued by appellants, neither Hutchins nor
Swanson discloses or suggests the imidazolium monomer (a) recited
in independent claim 26. Accordingly, neither Hutchins nor
Hutchins considered with Swanson constitutes sufficient evidence
Appeal No. 95-3374
Application No. 08/103,644
-3-
to support a conclusion of obviousness of claims 26 through 49
and 51.
The examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ANDREW H. METZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3374
Application No. 08/103,644
-4-
Richmond, Phillips, Hitchcock
& Fish
P.O. Box 2443
Bartlesville, OK 74005