Appeal No. 2006-2617
Application No. 10/729,446
copolymer.” Thus, Sosa discloses that the starting material recited in claim
18, a styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer, can be used as the
elastomer component of the TIPS material.
After the elastomer has been prepared within a diluent solvent, Sosa
discloses that the solvent-elastomer mixture “is then sent to the solvent
exchange section where the diluent is replaced by or ‘exchanged’ with
styrene monomer.” (Sosa, col. 4, ll. 41-43.) Sosa therefore describes claim
18’s step of “dissolving a styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer in
styrene monomer.”
Sosa discloses that once the styrene monomer has replaced the diluent
solvent, the elastomer-styrene monomer mixture is sent to a TIPS reactor
system to be polymerized. (Sosa, col. 4, ll. 44-57.) Sosa further discloses
that “[t]he structure of the rubber particles in TIPS material is smaller than
the wavelength of visible light, thereby allowing light to pass through the
material unhindered, rendering the final product transparent . . . .” (Sosa,
col. 4, ll. 64-67.)
Thus, as we understand it, Sosa describes a process in which the
starting material recited in claim 18 is subjected to the two process steps
recited in claim 18, resulting in a product having the physical properties
recited in the claim.
Appellants argue that the Examiner maintained the anticipation
rejection, despite having “concurred” in a personal interview on January 12,
2005,2 that Sosa’s composition is not identical to that claimed. (Br. 3.)
2 Examiner Interview Summary Record, dated January 12, 2005. The date of
this document in the electronic file wrapper is April 11, 2005.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013