Appeal No. 96-2675
Application No. 08/299,760
founded for essentially reasons expressed by appellant in his
Brief, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejections.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Our view of the claimed subject matter is that it is
directed to two essential limitations which are not met by the
references relied upon by the examiner. The first is directed
to a requirement that subsequent to the melt extrusion the
moisture content of the polyvinyl alcohol be increased. The
limitation of adding moisture has not been directly addressed
by the examiner.
The examiner obliquely argues that appellant’s argument
directed to increasing the moisture content of the film after
melt extrusion is unpersuasive because Takigawa discloses that
any polyvinyl alcohol resin meeting specific criteria can be
used, no matter how it is prepared. See Takigawa, page 2,
lines 16-20. The issue however, is not how polyvinyl alcohol
is prepared, even though the claim refers to a “polyvinyl
alcohol polymer being produced by” increasing its moisture
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007