Appeal No. 1996-0214
Application 07/755,603
polymer reacts (amendment filed January 28, 1993, paper no.
11, pages 30-31).
The examiner argues that Dr. Muschke establishes that
appellants’ examples 4 and 6-9 have functionality ratios of
1.34 to 1.58 which overlap Meinhardt’s range (answer, page 9).
The response to the opposition to EP 0 208 560 indicates that
Dr. Muschke is a patent attorney. Thus, the evidence relied
upon by the examiner appears to be mere attorney argument.
Furthermore, the ratios of 1.34 to 1.58 are succination ratios
calculated from appellants’ functionality ratios. The
relevant inquiry is whether Meinhardt’s ratios, if they are
succination ratios, correspond to functionality ratios which
fall within the range recited in appellants’ claims. As
discussed above, this determination cannot be made because
Meinhardt does not disclose the fraction of the polymer which
is substituted with succinic groups.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
carried her burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation over Meinhardt of the invention recited in any of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007