Appeal No. 1997-2233
Application No. 08/365,384
2. Claim 1 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Hendy in view of Wingler.
Based upon the record before us, we agree with appellants
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness or anticipation. Accordingly, we reverse all
of the rejections at issue.
According to the examiner, there is a reasonable basis to
believe that the monomer feeding schedule employed by Hendy
would be essentially the same as that which would be
calculated by using appellants' equations since essentially
identical results are obtained by Hendy and appellants. In
other words, both maintain a constant monomer ratio in a
reaction mixture during the course of the reaction which
results in production of a homogeneous polymer product. Even
if we accept this finding as being true, it is not dispositive
of the issues on appeal.
A question remains as to whether appellants' claim
affirmatively includes the step of determining the feeding
However, we assume from the remarks in numbered section (9)
of the Answer that the rejection is maintained by the
examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007