Appeal No. 95-1959
Application 07/894,128
rejection with which declarant was faced under 35 U.S.C. § 103
was over Welborn in view of Takahashi, Sinn et al. Maemoto and
Winter. Inexplicably, declarant fails to address the rejection
made by the examiner or acknowledge that Maemoto fairly
suggests "finely divided" polypropylene as a carrier for
catalysts as claimed. At page 2, declarant states that he
has:
carried out a Comparative Experiment, in which,
under otherwise identical conditions, Example 3 of
the instant application has been repeated with the
exception that I replaced polypropylene grit by
polyethylene grit.
The examiner objected to the declaration on various grounds,
including the failure to adequately identify the nature of the
"polyethylene grit." Accordingly, a second declaration was
proffered in which the declarant specifically attempted to
address the examiner's objections to the first declaration.
In the second declaration, after restating the
rejections and issues to which his second declaration is
addressed, Dr. Schlund states that the polyethylene grit used
in the previous declaration had a particular particle size and
a particular average particle size distribution. In the
paragraph bridging page 1 and 2 of the second declaration,
declarant states:
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007