Appeal No. 96-1795
Application No. 08/262,745
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 6-9 and 12 under
§ 102(b)/103 over Cincera and the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-
9, 11, 12 and 14 under § 102(e) as anticipated by Eichenauer I
or II. We affirm all of the remaining rejections essentially
for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the Answer. We
add the following comments for completeness and emphasis.
OPINION
A. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must
identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to
anticipate the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15
USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appealed claim 1 recites
specific amounts and average molecular weight limitations for
components A) through C).
The examiner apparently recognizes that the specific
average molecular weight limitations of appealed claim 1 do
not overlap with those disclosed by Eichenauer I, II or
Cincera (Answer, pages 3 and 6, see also the Brief, page 7).
However, the examiner urges that the normal molecular weight
distribution of a SAN (styrene/acrylonitrile) copolymer will
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007