Appeal No. 96-3935
Application 08/209,673
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 30, mailed December 15, 1995) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 29, filed August 25, 1995)
for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review we have reached the determinations
which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of appealed claims 2 through 7 and 40 through 48 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wozniak, we note that the examiner has taken the position that
Wozniak discloses (col. 4, lines 2-6) a viscoelastic memory means comprising a polyethylene oxide
having a molecular weight within the claimed range and which is crosslinked
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007