Appeal No. 95-3858
Application 07/931,628
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Polaski 3,894,982 July 15, 1975
Esselborn et al. 4,476,252 Oct. 9, 1984
(Esselborn)
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to random
copolymers of vinyl acetate and a polyalkylene oxide having an
allyl glycidyl ether unit. The claimed copolymers find utility
as polyols in the production of urethanes.
Appealed claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 26, 28, 34 and 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. In
addition, the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Esselborn in view of Polaski.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejections.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. In
essence, it is the examiner’s position that the structural
formula recited in claim 1 on appeal defines a block copolymer,
whereas line 1 of claim 1 calls for a “random copolymer.”
According to the examiner, the recited structure is inconsistent
with the language “random copolymer,” and, therefore, the claims
are indefinite since it is not clear whether a random or block
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007