Appeal No. 2006-2617
Application No. 10/729,446
However, as discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Sosa
describes a process using a starting material encompassed by Appellants’
claim 18. We therefore also agree with the Examiner’s decision to maintain
the anticipation rejection over Sosa, despite whatever transpired in the
interview of January 12, 2005.
Appellants also argue that their claimed impact modified polystyrene
is a “High Impact Polystyrene” as defined in the Specification in at least
paragraphs [0003], [0004], and [0015], whereas Sosa’s product is a
“Transparent Impact Modified Polystyrene (TIPS), which is not the same
product as HIPS, regardless of whether the HIPS is transparent.” (Br. 3.)
Appellants urge (Br. 3-4, Reply Br. 2) that Sosa explicitly
distinguishes between TIPS and HIPS by stating as follows:
The primary difference between a HIPS material and a
TIPS material arises from the difference in the morphologies of
the two materials' rubber phases. In the HIPS material, the
rubber is present as a distribution of different sized, well-
defined spherical particles, ranging from about 0.5 up to about
15 microns in diameter. In TIPS materials the rubber phase is
present in “domains” that have dimensions that will not refract
visible light, and therefore appear to the human eye as
transparent.
(Sosa, col. 1, ll. 30-40.)
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. A reference which
discloses all of the elements in a claim anticipates that claim, even if it does
not use the same terminology as the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-
833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The[] [claimed] elements
must be arranged as in the claim under review, but this is not an ‘ipsissimis
verbis’ test.”) (citations omitted).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013