Appeal No. 1997-0218
Application No. 08/182,757
Grouping of claims
According to appellants, claims 42-47, 49-51, 66, 77 and
78 do not stand or fall together (Brief, p. 9). Therefore,
for purposes of this appeal, the patentability of each of
claims 42-47, 49-51, 66, 77 and 78 will be addressed below.
Discussion
A. Claims 42 and 43
Claim 42 is directed to a laminated glazing unit
comprising a plasticized polyvinyl chloride film disposed
between two glass sheets. A layer of a mercapto-functional
(...continued)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Beckmann in
view of Baudin, Plueddemann, Miyata, Kawakubo, Tadenuma,
Kobayashi and Modern Plastics. This rejection was not
maintained by the examiner in the Answer, and therefore, is
not before us in this appeal. See MPEP § 1208 (7th ed., Rev.
1, Feb. 2000). However, the following two new grounds of
rejection are set forth in the Answer: (1) claims 52, 56 and
78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, and (2) claims 42-47, 49-51, 66, 77
and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beckmann in view of Baudin, Plueddemann,
Williams, Miyata, Kawakubo, Tadenuma, Kobayashi and Modern
Plastics. The first new ground of rejection is no longer at
issue since claims 52 and 56 have not been maintained on
appeal (Reply Brief, p. 2), and an amendment to claim 78 has
overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. See Paper Nos. 19 and 21. Therefore, the sole
issue remaining in this appeal is the second new ground of
rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007