Appeal No. 1997-3282
Application No. 08/189,314
claim 1 in that claim 12 does not specifically require a
polyolefin polymer having a CDBI of greater than about 70
percent. The examiner stated in both the final rejection
(page 2) and the answer (page 5) that claim 12 does not recite
a CDBI of greater than 70 percent, to which the appellant has
failed to respond. As discussed supra, we agree with the
examiner that Shibano teaches polyolefin polymers having a
density of no greater than about .90 g/cc. Furthermore, the
appellant has chosen not to argue the combination of the
applied art used by the examiner in making the obviousness
rejection of independent claim 12. Since the appellant has
not specified any errors in the combination of prior art
applied by the examiner, or pointed to and explained how any
limitation in claim 12 renders the claimed subject matter
unobvious over the applied prior art, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In light of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner's
rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and sustain
the examiner's rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Shibano in view of Kitano and Patterson.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007