Ex parte MONTAG et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1996-3729                                                        
          Application No. 08/253,839                                                  

          closest prior art since the comparative formulations in these               
          instances either do not include a modifier at all (Tables 8                 
          and 12-13), or apparently do not include an aromatic polyamide              
          (Table 9); whereas Saito (examples 9 and 34) exemplifies both               
          of these components.                                                        
               For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the examiner                  
          that the evidence of obviousness represented by the cited                   
          prior art references outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness               
          relied upon by appellants.  Accordingly, the decision of the                
          examiner is affirmed.                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007