Appeal No. 1997-2233
Application No. 08/365,384
precharged with the slowest reacting monomer, and the faster
reacting monomer is then introduced at a specific feeding
schedule. The feeding schedule is determined before the
polymerization is conducted by employing an iterative
technique using the particular set of equations recited in the
claim on appeal. Appellants' claim is reproduced in an
appendix to our decision.1
The examiner relies upon the following two prior art
references in rejecting appellants' claim:
Hendy 4,039,734 Aug. 2, 1977
Wingler et al. (Wingler) 4,141,934 Feb. 27,
1979
The following rejections are before us:
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Hendy.2
1Apparently, the word "sais" on line 2 of the last
paragraph of the claim is a typographical error and,
presumably, was meant to be "said". Accordingly, both
appellants and the examiner should make sure that this error
is corrected upon resumption of ex parte prosecution.
2As to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 over Hendy, a formal statement of the grounds of
rejection has been omitted from the examiner's Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007