Appeal No. 1997-2837 Page 8
Application No. 08/377,365
to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the combined
teachings of Bothe and Peiffer.
Appellants’ arguments with regard to the prior art use of
migratory additives in the core and top layer are not persuasive
for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer and for
the additional reason that the herein claimed invention does not
exclude such additives in the core and top (outer) layers of the
final product as explained above. We note that appellants have
not advanced a particularized argument based on a detailed
showing establishing unexpected results co-extensive with the
scope of the claimed subject matter.
Rejection of Claims 8 and 12
With respect to the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
8 and 12, appellants do not contend that the additionally applied
Murschall and Schuhmann references in combination with Bothe and
Peiffer would not have rendered the additional limitations of
those claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007