Appeal No. 95-2008
Application No. 08/032,178
glass transition temperature between 10 and 40EC. (see part
(A) of claim 13).
Appellants submit that the applied prior art references
do not disclose or suggest the diepoxide reactant of part (A)
in claim 13 (brief, page 6, first full paragraph, and pages 7-
8). Contrary to the examiner’s assertion on page 3 of the
answer, appellants do dispute that Anderson discloses the
“epoxy resin component ‘(A)’” (see the brief, page 8, last
paragraph, and the reply brief, pages 1-2). The examiner has
not pointed out, and we cannot perceive, any disclosure where
the epoxy resin starting material of appealed claim 13 is
found in either Paar or Anderson or where any suggestion can
be found to modify or alter the epoxy resins of Paar or
Anderson to produce the required epoxy resin recited in
appealed claim 13, part (A). See In re Ochiai,
71 F.3d 1565, 1569-70, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The examiner, on page 3 of the answer, refers to the Office
action of Paper No. 11 (dated May 17, 1993) for an explanation
of the rejection. We fail to find any citation to Paar or
Anderson in the Office action of Paper No. 11 which would
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007