Appeal No. 95-1628
Application 08/067,750
The appealed claims as represented by claim 12 are drawn
to a foamed plastic, the cells of which contain an oligomer or
a polymer derived from a monomer used as a foaming agent.
According to appellants, the internal pressure of the cells is
reduced and the foamed plastic provides improved soundproofing
and heat insulating applications (specification, e.g., pages 1
and 5).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Nemphos 2,956,960 Oct. 18,
1960
Gavoret 3,386,926 Jun. 4,
1968
Matsunaga et al. (Matsunaga) 3,976,605 Aug. 24,
1976
Chandalia et al. (Chandalia) 4,181,781 Jan. 1,
1980
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 7 on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gavoret,
Matsunaga, Nemphos or Chandalia. The examiner has also
rejected appealed claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, enablement, and second paragraph. We
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced
by the examiner and appellants, we refer to the examiner’s
answer and to appellants’ main and reply briefs for a complete
exposition thereof.
Opinion
2 Appellants state in their brief (page 2) that the appealed
claims “stand or fall together.” Thus, we decide this appeal
based on appealed claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) and (6)(1993).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007