Appeal No. 1996-0214
Application 07/755,603
appellants’ claims. We therefore reverse the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner states that the primary references relied
upon in the rejections under § 103, i.e., Rense, Okamoto,
Robson, and Le Suer, do not disclose the functionality ratio
recited in appellants’ claims. To remedy this deficiency, 5
the examiner relies upon Cullen and Palmer.
Cullen discloses a charge molar ratio of polyalkene to
maleic anhydride of about 1:0.5 to 1:5 (col. 2, lines 60-62),
5 Appellants acknowledge (brief, page 17) that in
Okamoto’s example 1, assuming the molecular weight is a number
average molecular weight, the functionality ratio is between
1.17 and 1.29, which overlaps with the range recited in
appellants’ claims. As pointed out by appellants’, see id.,
the molecular weight in that example falls outside the range
recited in appellants’ claims. The examiner has not explained
why Okamoto, alone or in combination with the other applied
references, would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, a composition wherein the number average
molecular weight and functionality ratio are within the ranges
recited in appellants’ claims.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007