Appeal No. 96-2432
Application No. 08/066,087
Appealed claims 21-26 and 28-45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection.
Ritter discloses the preparation of cured (meth)acrylic
acid esters of polyfunctionally hydroxyl-terminated oligomers
of lower hydroxycarboxylic acids. However, Ritter does not
teach that the esters are prepared under solvent-free
conditions, as required by the appealed claims, and the
reference is silent with respect to the tensile strength of
the cured esters. According to the examiner, since Ritter
discloses the preparation of esters by reacting the same
components recited in the appealed claims, "the burden shifts
to appellant to show that the claimed product is novel and
unobvious" (page 4 of Answer).
It is well settled that when a claimed product reasonably
appears to be substantially the same as a product disclosed by
the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to prove that
the product of the prior art does not necessarily or
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007