Appeal No. 96-2675
Application No. 08/299,760
claimed subject matter is an obvious variation of the
invention defined in the claims of the Honeycutt patent, the
disclosure of the patent may not be used as prior art.
Accordingly, when we focus on any variations between the
Honeycutt claims and the instant claimed subject matter, our
analysis parallels that in our decision under § 103 above and
is incorporated herein. Therefore, for the reasons set forth
above, we find that Takigawa fails to disclose or suggest the
addition of moisture to the polyvinyl alcohol following melt
extrusion. Similarly, for the reasons set forth above, we
further find insufficient reasons for the addition of a
blocking agent disclosed by Naude-Filonniere.
Moreover, the examiner has not addressed in the Answer
the requirements in the claimed subject matter for, “melt
extrusion” and the further requirement for, “reducing its
moisture content prior to melt extrusion.” Based on the above
considerations, we conclude that the claimed subject matter
herein is not a mere variation of the claims in Honeycutt’s
patent and would not continue protection beyond the expiration
date of the Honeycutt patent. Accordingly, the examiner’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007