Appeal No. 2005-1693
Application No. 10/192,333
compositional CF2 fraction and a low degree of cross-linking density); see also Specification at
8, lines 16-21.
For the reasons set forth above, the combined teachings of Warby and Gleason would
have suggested the method of claim 2 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their combined
teachings also provide a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Warby and Gleason is
affirmed.
Claims 1 and 3 through 11 stand or fall with the patentability of claim 2. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Warby and Gleason is also affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007