Appeal No. 1997-0581
Application No. 08/168,549
Examiner. Additionally, appellants do not dispute
that the polymers of Strait et al. and Kelusky have
a certain melting point.
Rather, appellants argue that neither Strait nor Kelusky
discloses or would have suggested the claimed elevated
pressure. See, e.g., Reply Brief, page 2. However, the
examiner correctly finds that the plain language of claim 1
indicates that the claimed elevated pressure is dependent on
the temperature utilized (the claimed temperature). See
Answer, pages 7 and 8 and Supplemental Answer, page 1. Since
appellants do not dispute that both Strait and Kelusky teach
the claimed temperature, we agree with the examiner that both
Strait and Kelusky necessarily employ the pressure recited in
claims 1 and 11 in their extrusion grafting process.
Appellants have not supplied any scientific reasoning or
evidence to contradict this fact finding.
Even if, assuming arguendo, the claimed pressure is not
necessarily employed in the extrusion grafting process of
either Strait or Kelusky, our conclusion would not be altered.
Inasmuch as the applied prior art as a whole (e.g., Strait,
column 1, lines 14-16) recognizes a pressure condition as a
result effective variable, we find that one of ordinary skill
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007