Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
to a new ground of rejection set forth in an examiner’s
answer, leaving only claim 12 for our consideration in this
appeal. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are also pending in the
application but have been indicated as allowable by the
examiner in an advisory action entered March 7, 1994 (Paper
No. 9).
Claim 12 reads as follows:2
12. A poly(arylene sulfide) polymer prepared according
to claim 1 having a melt flow rate in the range of about 2 to
less than 50 g/10 minutes.
For a clearer understanding of the subject matter on
appeal
we also reproduce allowable claim 1:3
1. A process for producing a high molecular weight,
essentially linear poly(arylene sulfide) polymer which
2
The examiner’s answer indicates that “[t]he copy of
the appealed claims contained in the Appendix to the brief is
correct” (Answer, p.2). However, the copy of claim 12
contained in the Appendix to the brief does not include
amendments thereto filed on February 24, 1994 (Paper No. 8)
and November 25, 1994 (Paper No. 16) and entered by the
examiner. The copy of claim 12 reproduced in this Decision on
Appeal includes these amendments.
3
The copy of claim 1 reproduced in the Appendix to
the brief does not include the amendment thereto filed on
February 24, 1994 (Paper No. 8) and entered by the examiner.
The copy of claim 1 reproduced in this Decision on Appeal
includes this amendment.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007