Appeal No. 1996-1284
Application No. 08/084,685
Appellant submits at page 3 of the Reply Brief that
"[a]pplicant does not assert that any claim stands separate
from claim 1 for the following arguments regarding the issue."
Accordingly, appealed claims 1-3 stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter 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 for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Van Amerongen teaches the
preparation of a random copolymer of a conjugated diene and a
vinyl aromatic compound in the presence of a lithium initiator
and a polar modifier. Van Amerongen incorporates by reference
the polar modifiers disclosed in GB '490, which include five
aliphatic amines having the same active tertiary dimethylamine
as the presently claimed tetramethylethylenediamine (see the
disclosure of dimethylethylamine at page 2, line 24 of GB
'490). Hence, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007