Appeal No. 1998-2128
Application No. 08/628.281
Page 3
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Morimoto.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants’ brief and reply brief 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 make the determinations which follow.
Appellants submit that the claims do not stand or fall
together, and group the claims as follows: Group I: claims 1-6,
and Group II: claims 7-11 (brief, page 4). The examiner does not
disagree with this grouping. (answer, page 2). Hence, we
consider claims 1 and 7. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(1997).
I. The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Horie
Appellants argue that the examiner’s reasoning in reaching
his conclusions (for example, that the weight average molecular
weight of the styrene polymer of Horie inherently meets
appellants’ claim) are conjecture. (reply brief, page 2).
We note, however, that Horie’s Example 7 discloses a
composition prepared from 2 polyesters in amounts as recited in
appellants’ claim 1 (column 10, example 7). The similarities
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007