Appeal No. 96-1076
Application No. 07/961,160
In support of their contrary view, the appellants argue
that the appealed claims are directed to polymeric mixtures
which do not encompass the cross-linked polymer material of
Penneck. This argument is unpersuasive for a number of
reasons.
In the first place, the independent claim language
“coating formed by a polymeric mixture” does not distinguish
over a polymeric mixture which is ultimately cross-linked into
a coating as in the Penneck reference. In this regard, we are
mindful of the appellants’ argument that “it is clear from the
specification that appellants’ claimed mixture is an end
product which is not to be cross-linked” (Reply Brief, page
2). From our perspective, however, the subject specification
militates against this argument by expressly disclosing that
the polymeric mixtures may undergo “some structural
modification” (see Specification page 7, second full
paragraph).
Secondly, even if the appealed claims excluded a
condition wherein the first and second thermoplastic polymers
are cross-linked with each other, these claims still would not
distinguish over the subject matter disclosed by Penneck.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007