Appeal No. 95-3536
Application 08/038,400
The Rejection
Claims 3, 5, 12-17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Minagawa in combination with Moylan and Moore.3
Opinion
We have carefully considered the entire record in light of the respective positions advanced
by appellant and by the examiner. In doing so, we reverse the rejection of the claims for obviousness.
The claimed subject matter defines a process wherein a polyolefin composition is melt
extruded through a filtration system before passing the melt into a die to make a plastic article.
Appellant admits that the use of such filtration systems in extrusion systems for making polymeric
fibers and films is known in the art (specification: p. 1, lines 6-19 and p. 3, lines 14-23). Moylan 4
discloses a filtration system for reclaiming polyolefins containing impurities comprising the steps of
3The final rejection included three rejections. The first rejection was a rejection of claims
1, 2 and 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Minagawa and Moylan. The examiner’s second
rejection was a rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 1-3 over Minagawa, Moylan and Moore.
The third rejection was a rejection of claims 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Minagawa,
Moylan and Moore.
In an advisory action, the examiner indicated that the claims rejected were claims 3, 5 and
12-20. In the answer, the examiner’s restatement of the rejection apparently is a consolidation of
all three rejections into one rejection. However, the rejection of claim 5 would constitute a new
ground of rejection since this claim was never rejected over the combination of Minagawa,
Moylan and Moore. In view of our reversal of the rejection, there is no need to remand the case
back to the examiner.
4It is well settled that admitted prior art should be taken into consideration when
determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571, 184 USPQ
607, 611-612 (CCPA 1975).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007