Appeal No. 1996-2626
Application No. 08/286,046
Background
Applicant describes the invention, at pages 2-3 of the specification, as being
directed to a method for incorporating an anti-static agent into a polymeric material in a
spinning extruder and the product resulting from this method.
Discussion
Grouping of the claims
At page 5 of the Appellant's Brief (Brief), appellant states that claim 20 does not
stand or fall together with claims 18 and 21-24. Appellant has not separately argued the
claims within the group which include 18 and 21-24. Therefore, in considering the issues
presented in this appeal, we have separately considered claim 20 and have considered
18 as representative of claims 18 and 21-24. 37 C.F.R. §1.192(7)(1995).
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 18 and 21-24:
In setting forth the basis of this rejection, the examiner relies on Jones as describing
(Answer, page 3)
a process for introducing additives into thermoplastic melt (see claims of Jones).
One of the additives is an anti-static agent and one thermoplastic material is nylon 6
both of which are claimed in instant claim 18. Jones feeds the additive in an
aqueous vehicle together with a dispersant into an extruder. These additives are
essentially solids (see claim 13). Addition of a surfactant is also suggested
(column 5, lines 32-36).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007