Appeal No. 96-1795
Application No. 08/262,745
noted that appellants have not submitted any showing of
comparative results.
The examiner also relies upon combinations of Lausberg
and Kodama with Eichenauer I or II. The examiner applies
Lausberg for the disclosure of methylstyrene/AN copolymer, ABS
(acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene) and polyurethane while
Kodama is directed to methylstyrene/AN copolymer, ABS and
polyesters (Answer, page 4). The examiner admits that
Lausberg and Kodama do not disclose the molecular weight
distribution of the SAN copolymer as recited in the claims on
appeal but concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to use the trimodal molecular weight distribution of
Eichenauer I or II in the blend of Kodama or Lausberg to
achieve the advantageous properties taught by Eichenauer I or
II (Id.).
Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion
in any of the cited references that would lead an artisan to
combine the teachings of Eichenauer I or II with the teachings
of Lausberg of Kodama in the manner suggested by the examiner
(Brief, pages 11-13). Appellants’ arguments are not well
taken for the reason set forth by the examiner on pages 4 and
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007