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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007