Appeal No. 96-1076
Application No. 07/961,160
Penneck’s polyether-esters and the characteristics possessed
thereby differ from those here claimed . 3
For the above stated reasons, we will sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 13 through 16 as being
unpatentable over Penneck taken with Cella.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
3It is appropriate to clarify that Shore D hardness and
Vicat softening point should be regarded as characteristics of
the here claimed second thermoplastic polymer rather than
“result effective variables” of the process by which these
polymers are made as the appellants seem to imply (e.g., see
the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the Reply Brief).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007