Appeal No. 96-0011 Page 5
Application No. 07/993,896
Claims 3 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ehrlich in view of Hedenburg, McGrath, Pine,
McCoy, and Bailey.
OPINION
Appellants have stated that claims 4 - 7 stand or fall
with claim 3. See appellant’s Brief, page 2. Accordingly,
our discussion will be confined to claims 3, the only
independent claim. See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
We have carefully considered appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are essentially in agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejection.
The sole issue before us is whether the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the
rejection of record. See Brief, page 1. Appellants argue in
that respect that, “none of the six references cited discloses
the particular polyurea specified in claim 3.” See Brief, page
5. We disagree.
The examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness by relying on the Ehrlich reference as disclosing a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007