Appeal 2006-2380
Application 10/791,079
ll. 40-42). Accordingly, applying Gardner’s disclosure to use thermoplastic-
thermoset binders to Example 2 at column 16, lines 49-60 is based on the
explicit disclosures of Gardner not on hindsight. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
argued claims 1 and 36 and non-argued claims 2-7, 9-11, 34, 35, 37-44, 50,
and 51 over Gardner.
THE OTHER § 103(a) REJECTIONS
Appellants do not separately argue the following rejections: (1)
dependent claims 12, 13, 32, 45, 46, and 49 under § 103(a) over Gardner in
view of Bray, and (2) dependent claims 14, 15, 47, and 48 under § 103(a)
over Gardner in view of Luk. Rather, Appellants base the viability of these
rejections on the propriety of rejecting independent claims 1 and 36 under
§ 103(a) over Gardner. As we discussed above, we determine that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, 34-44, 50, and 51 under § 103(a)
over Gardner is proper.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s following rejections: (1)
dependent claims 12, 13, 32, 45, 46, and 49 under § 103(a) over Gardner in
view of Bray, and (2) dependent claims 14, 15, 47, and 48 under § 103(a)
over Gardner in view of Luk.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, 34-44, 50, and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, 32, 45, 46, and 49 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of Bray is
AFFIRMED.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013