Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Horacek.
Claims 2 to 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Horacek.
OPINION
The Watts Reference
Initially, we note that the claims of this rejection
stand or fall together. See appellants’ Brief, p. 3, section
VII A. Accordingly, we will limit our discussion to one
claim, specifically, claim 1.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner. We will sustain the
rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Watts for the reasons of record set forth by
the examiner in the Answer and Supplemental Examiner’s Answer,
papers numbered 11 and 13, dated 09/06/95 and 02/02/96
respectively. Our remarks are added for emphasis.
Appellants have argued in their Brief, paper no. 10, page
3, lines 24 and 25, that the claimed polyphenyl polymethylene
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007