Appeal No. 1996-3724
Application No. 08/120,305
Senga alone or alternatively over the combined disclosures of
Vidaurri and Scoggins or Nesheiwat or Senga.
On pages 1 and 2 of their request, the appellants
reiterate their argument that Senga alone contains no teaching
or suggestion of preparing poly(arylene sulfide) polymer via a
polymerization with a waste material which comprises, for
example, water in accordance with appealed independent claim
1. For the reasons expressed in the paragraph bridging pages
3 and 4 of our decision, however, we adhere to our conclusion
of obviousness. As stated in this aforementioned paragraph,
“it would have been obvious to ‘recycle’ Senga’s recovered
powdery PAS along with water in a wet rather than dry form
because water is in the reaction medium to which the recycle
stream is added (e.g., see lines 37 through 47 in column 4),
thereby avoiding the expense of removing water from the
recovered powdery PAS (and thereby satisfying, for example,
step (d) of appealed independent claim 1)” (decision, page 4).
We likewise adhere to the conclusion of obviousness
expressed in the May 28, 1999 decision concerning the
rejection based upon Vidaurri and Scoggins or Nesheiwat or
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007