Appeal No. 96-1781
Application 08/389,521
the temperature range of about 25EC to about 80EC within which
appellants’ polymer/aminoplast mixture is heated
(specification, page 20, lines 17-20), the partial prereaction
recited in appellants’ claim 12 necessarily takes place during
the heating steps of Howell, Jr. and Anderson.
Appellants merely point out the benefit of their partial
prereacting (brief, page 6), but make no argument which is
directed toward distinguishing over the prior art the process
recited in their claim 12.
Because the examiner’s argument is supported and is
reasonable, and because appellants have provided no evidence
or technical reasoning to the contrary, we conclude, based on
the preponderance of the evidence, that the process recited in
appellants’ claim 12 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the combined teachings of Howell, Jr., Anderson, Bozzi,
Erickson and Udipi is affirmed.
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007