Appeal No. 96-1795
Application No. 08/262,745
8 of the Answer, namely that Eichenauer I and II teach the
superiority of trimodal SAN copolymers over mono- and dimodal
(i.e., one or two average molecular weight) SAN copolymers in
a blend similar to that of Lausberg and Kodama. See
Eichenauer I, column 6, line
12 - column 7, line 35, especially Tables 1 and 2; Eichenauer
II, column 6, line 10 - column 7, line 40, especially Tables 1
and 2. Note Comparison Examples 7-10 in each reference, which
show poorer results when one or two ranges of molecular weight
SAN copolymer are employed as compared to Examples 1-6 where
trimodal SAN copolymers are blended with the other components.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Answer, we determine that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness in view of the applied prior art.
Determining patentability on the totality of the record, with
due consideration of appellants’ arguments, the preponderance
of evidence weighs in favor of obviousness within the meaning
of
§ 103. In re Oetiker, supra. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12 and 13 under § 103 as unpatentable
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007