Appeal No. 96-2103
Application 08/194,515
All the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
2
Stamatoff, Watanabe, Kelmchuk, Nakamura, Plischeke and Hachk’s Chemical Dictionary.
We reverse.
Background and Discussion
As indicated in the claims above, the appellants’ invention is directed to a thermal
stable, weather-resistant polyamide molding composition which comprises an aliphatic or
aromatic polyamide, a copper stabilizer and a reducing agent, and a method of making
said composition. According to the specification, “[p]olyamide molding compounds are
high-quality thermoplastics which are distinguished by high heat resistance, very good
mechanical properties, high toughness, high resistance to chemicals and ready
processability.” Specification, p. 1, lines 6-10. Such compounds are said to be useful in
the electrical, construction, furniture and automotive industries. Id., lines 21-24.
Although the examiner states that she has based her conclusion of obviousness on
2We note that on p. 3 of the Answer the examiner has rejected canceled claims 1
through 10 as being unpatentable over the applied prior art. In addition, the examiner
points to the limitations in claim 1 on p. 6 of the Answer. However, since in the statement
of the “Status of the Claims” on p. 1 of the Answer, the examiner recognizes that the
present appeal involves claims 11, 14, 16 through 18, 20 and 21, we presume that the
statement of rejection, and p. 6 of the Answer, contain inadvertent errors. Accordingly, we
have considered the examiner’s rejection and comments as being directed to claims 11,
14, 16 through 18, 20 and 21.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007