Appeal No. 1997-2335 Page 3
Application No. 08/367,913
Claims 51-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tournut.2
OPINION
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellant that the applied
prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection.
At the outset, we note the examiner (answer, page 4) has
essentially agreed with appellant’s interpretation of the
vinylidene fluoride homopolymer domain of Tournut’s copolymers
as further set forth in the declaration of Dr. Wempe (Paper
No. 19 of parent application No. 08/065,700). In light of the
above, we shall decide this appeal based on a construction of
Toronto, Canada on June 7, 1998" (Paper No. 4 of grandparent
application No. 07/799,452). We note that appellant does not
challenge the availability of Tournut as available prior art
to the herein claimed invention in the brief.
2Since the other grounds of rejection set forth in the
final rejection (Paper No. 30) were not set forth in the
examiner's answer we assume that these other grounds of
rejection have been withdrawn by the examiner. See Ex parte
Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007