Appeal No. 95-5125
Application No. 07/891,300
asserted in their specification (page 2), “(W)hile the prior
art disclosures may incorporate lithium triflate, they
crosslink the polymer for solidification of the electrolyte,
which does not occur in the present invention.” Polyethylene
oxide being the only polymer present in appellant’s invention,
it clearly is the uncrosslinked polymeric component referred
to by appellant supra. Moreover, appellant has himself argued
that polyethylene oxide is uncrosslinked and without side
chains. See Brief, page 16 wherein appellant states, “no
cross-linking with main and side chains is present.” We find
that appellant’s statement in the Brief supra necessarily
refers to polyethylene oxide.
Appellant has further expressly stated, “(T)he
polyethylene oxide is without side chains.” See Brief, pages
5 and 14. He has also argued that the reference relied upon
by the examiner does not contain, “pure polyethylene oxide.”
See the amendment, page 7, Paper No. 3, dated July 2, 1993.
We find each of the appellant’s statements consistent with our
definition of polyethylene oxide supra.
These findings are dispositive of the appeal before us.
Cheshire, the sole reference of record relied upon by the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007