Appeal No. 96-1076
Application No. 07/961,160
This is because the aromatic polymer and the aliphatic polymer
of Penneck (which correspond to the here claimed first and
second thermoplastic polymers) need not be cross-linked with
each other as the appellants seem to believe. As correctly
indicated by the examiner, Penneck expressly discloses in the
last paragraph on page 17 of the reference that “the aliphatic
polymer may be highly crosslinked [i.e., with itself] while
the aromatic polymer remains substantially uncrosslinked”.
Concerning this matter, it is appropriate to emphasize the
appellants do not even allege that the appealed claims exclude
an embodiment wherein one of the here claimed thermoplastic
polymers has been cross-linked with itself.
The appellants additionally seem to argue that Penneck
contains no teaching or suggestion of an elongation not lower
than 50% as required by the claims on appeal. This is clearly
incorrect. Penneck expressly discloses that his “polymeric
material ... will preferably have an elongation to break of at
least 50% and especially at least 100%” (see the last sentence
in the first full paragraph on page 16).
Finally, the appellants point out that the Penneck
reference contains no teaching or suggestion of the here
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007