Ex parte IKEDA et al. - Page 2




               Appeal No. 1996-1372                                                                                                
               Application No. 08/003,659                                                                                          





                       The reference relied on by the examiner is:                                                                 

               European Patent                                                                                                     
               Shibuya et al. (Shibuya)                      263 678                April 4, 1988                                  

                       A reference relied on by appellants (brief, page 2) is:                                                     

               Shi et al. (Shi), “Effect of ß-nucleator content on the crystallization and melting behaviour of ß-                 
               crystalline phase polypropylene,” 205 Thermochmica Acta 235-243 (1992).                                             

                       Claims 1-10 and 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                       

               Shibuya.  We AFFIRM-IN-PART.                                                                                        

                       In reaching our decision in this appeal we have given careful consideration to the appellants’              

               specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.            

               We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 21, mailed August 3, 1995) for the                            

               examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 22, filed                 

               August 7, 1995) and declaratory evidence (IKEDA Declaration, Paper No. 11, filed June 22, 1994)                     

               for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                                         

                       According to appellants, the claims are grouped as follows: (I) composition claims 1-10, (II)               

               method claims 22 and 12-20 and (III) compound claim 21 (brief, page 3).  Therefore, we decide this                  

               appeal on the basis of claims 1, 22 and 21.  37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).                                         

                                                            OPINION                                                                

                                                               - 2 -                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007