Appeal No. 96-1795
Application No. 08/262,745
claim 1. The examiner’s arguments regarding the inherency of
Cincera’s high average molecular weight fraction including a
low average molecular weight fraction have been discussed
above. Cincera does teach that “[s]ome low molecular [sic,
weight] polymer may be formed during the heating and
separation steps.” (column 21, lines 30-31) but the examiner
has not cited any disclosure, teaching or suggestion in
Cincera regarding the amounts or specific molecular weights
for this “low molecular polymer”. Accordingly, the rejection
under § 103 over Cincera is reversed.
The remaining rejections under § 103 involve Eichenauer I
or II. As noted by appellants on pages 7-9 of the Brief and
the examiner on pages 3-4 of the Answer, Eichenauer I or II
discloses components A) through D) in overlapping amounts as
recited in appealed claim 1 with two differences. The minimum
M of component A) in the references is 120,000 while the
w
maximum M of component A) in appealed claim 1 is 119,000.
w
Similarly for component B), the minimum of the references is
50,000 while appealed claim 1 recites a maximum M of 49,500.
w
Appellants submit that the examiner has failed to provide
any reasoning for why the claims are obvious in view of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007