Appeal No. 95-3313
Application 08/134,851
GRON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 134
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of an examiner’s
rejection of Claims 9 and 11-15, all claims pending in this
application.
Introduction
Claims 9 and 11-15 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable in view of the combined teachings
of Whitlock, U.S. 3,046,263, patented July 24, 1962, and
Malhotra, U.S. 4,123,606, patented October 31, 1978. On
appeal before this Board, the examiner “dropped [Malhotra]
from the rejection” in response to appellants’ Appeal Brief
(Examiner’s Answer (Ans.), p. 2). Accordingly, Claims 9 and
11-15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable in view of Whitlock’s
teaching alone. Appellants ask us to independently review the
merits of the examiner’s section 103 rejection of Claims 9 and
12 over Whitlock’s teaching. Otherwise, Claims 11 and 13-15
are said to stand or fall with Claim 9 (Appeal Brief (Br.), p.
3). Claims 9, 12 and 14 are reproduced below.
9. A continuous process for preparing
polytetrafluoroethylene wet powder which comprises
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007