Appeal No. 1996-1788
Application No. 08/158,580
The following rejections are before us for consideration:
I. Claims 1 and 30 stand rejected for indefiniteness
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
II. Claims 1-12, 22-25 and 28-32 stand rejected for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Mahabadi I or
Mahabadi II taken in combination with Wilson and Fuller.3
Based on the record before us, we cannot sustain either
of the rejections at issue. Instead, we shall apply a new
ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we conclude that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. In this regard, we note
that the claimed invention involves a three-component mixture
including a polyester with amine functionality; whereas
Mahabadi involves reactive melt mixing of only two essential
components, i.e., an unsaturated base resin, such as
3Consideration of Mahabadi II is superfluous as it merely
represents a division of Mahabadi I. Accordingly,
consideration of the Mahabadi disclosure will be solely by
reference to Mahabadi I.
Furthermore, we note that the rejection of claim 4 is
moot since claim 4 was cancelled by amendment (Paper No. 3)
prior to the final rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007