Ex parte REUVEN et al. - Page 2

                 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,                            
                          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                                                                           
                  103 over Hendy, a formal statement of the grounds of                                                                                 
                 rejection has been omitted from the examiner's Answer.                                                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007