Appeal No. 1997-0311
Application No. 08/340,017
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to an aqueous
dispersion comprising five recited components. Appealed claim
12 defines a transparent elastomer that is prepared from the
aqueous dispersion.
Appellants submit at page 2 of the Brief that, with the
exception of claim 12, all the claims stand or fall together.
Appealed claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gamon. Appealed
claims 1-5 and 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Braun in combination with
Sittenthaler.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in complete agreement with the examiner that aqueous
dispersions within the scope of claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8 and
10 over Gamon, as well as the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11
over the combination of Braun and Sittenthaler, for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer. However,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007