Appeal No. 2001-1904
Application 09/240,450
II. The Rejection involving the Reference of Priester
On pages 12-13 of the brief, appellant argues that Priester
teaches a ratio of poly(oxyalkylene) polymer to fluoropolymer
from about 6:1 to about 1:4, preferably in the range of about 3:1
to about 1:12. See column 5, lines 65-68 and column 6, line 1 of
Priester.
Appellant argues that the inverted value recited in claim 1
regarding component (b), corresponding to the ratios of Priester,
is from 1:1 to about 1:200. Appellant concludes that the present
application extends “50X beyond the range contemplated by
Priester”, and appellant argues that this is “beyond the realm of
obviousness”.
The examiner, on page 5 of the answer, rebuts and states
that there is an overlap between the ratio required in the claims
and the ratio taught by Priester, and we agree for the reasons
mentioned, supra. Id.
Appellant further argues that Priester requires a polar-
side-group-containing extrusion adjuvent in addition to the
fluoropolymer and poly(oxyalkylene) polymer. (brief, page 12).
However, as pointed out by the examiner on page 5 of the answer,
appellant’s claims do not exclude a polar-side-group-containing
extrusion adjuvant.
In view of the above, we affirm this rejection also.
III. Conclusion
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007