Appeal No. 1996-0214
Application 07/755,603
1.05 to 1.25 (answer, page 9). Appellants do not state that
Rense and Palmer disclose such functionality ratios. Instead,
appellants state (specification, page 8) that Rense and Palmer
provide alternative methods to the methods which use such
functionality ratios.
For the above reasons, we hold that the examiner has not
carried her burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the invention recited in any of appellants’
claims. Consequently, we reverse the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
REMAND
As discussed above, Meinhardt’s claims 1, 50 and 59
indicate that the disclosed ratio of at least 1.3 is a
succination ratio. Appellants’ discussion of prior patents
(specification, pages 7-8) indicates that it was known in the
art to obtain, by use of halogen, reaction of about 65-95 wt%
of a polyolefin with dicarboxylic acid material. Adjustment
of Meinhardt’s ratios using such a degree of reaction produces
functionality ratios which include values falling within the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007