Appeal No. 96-1641 Application No. 08/225,036 Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Horacek. Claims 2 to 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Horacek. OPINION The Watts Reference Initially, we note that the claims of this rejection stand or fall together. See appellants’ Brief, p. 3, section VII A. Accordingly, we will limit our discussion to one claim, specifically, claim 1. We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the examiner. We will sustain the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Watts for the reasons of record set forth by the examiner in the Answer and Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, papers numbered 11 and 13, dated 09/06/95 and 02/02/96 respectively. Our remarks are added for emphasis. Appellants have argued in their Brief, paper no. 10, page 3, lines 24 and 25, that the claimed polyphenyl polymethylene 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007