Ex parte REUVEN et al. - Page 3

          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                       

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007