Ex parte STUART et al. - Page 8




          Appeal No. 1997-0581                                                        
          Application No. 08/168,549                                                  

          Appellants do not specifically point to any error in the                    
          examiner’s calculation.  Rather, appellants refer to a chart                
          relating to the relationship between melt flow index and                    
          viscosity for epolene waxes.  For the reasons indicated at                  
          page 2 of the Supplemental Answer, we agree with the examiner               
          that appellants have not demonstrated that the specific low                 
          molecular weight grafted polyolefins produced in the extrusion              
          grafting process of either Strait or Kelusky do not                         
          necessarily have a viscosity less than 3000 cP or 2000 cP at                
          190 C as required by claims 1 and 11, respectively.  In thiso                                                                        
          regard, we note that the comparative examples in the                        
          specification supposedly representative of prior art grafting               
          processes produce grafted polyolefins having a viscosity of                 
          less than 3000 cP and 2000 cP at 190 C as required by theo                                       
          claims.  See all of the comparative examples at pages 10-14 of              
          the specification.                                                          
               Further, appellants argue that “[u]nexpected results are               
          clearly set forth throughout the Examples, particularly                     
          viewing the paired Examples 4-5, 7-8, and 9-10, each without                
          pressure and with pressure.”  See, e.g., Brief, page 9.                     
          However, appellants have not satisfied their burden of                      

                                          8                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007