Appeal No. 1997-4336
Application No. 08/279,317
Upon consideration of the entire record, we determine
that the applied prior art does not establish a prima facie
case of unpatentability. Accordingly, we reverse the
aforementioned rejections.
We need to address only claim 20, the sole independent
claim, for each rejection. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fenton
The examiner’s position is stated as follows:
The Fenton patent teaches polyolefinic
solutions... This patent further teaches the
incorporation of appellants’ instantly claimed
hydrocarbon/co-solvent spin liquid. Appellants’
claimed hydrocarbons are clearly set forth as the
mutual solvents at column 3 line 57 - column 4 line
5. Appellants’ instantly claimed polar co-solvents
are set forth at column 4 lines 10+. This patent
clearly teaches to utilize these solvents in
combination with each other since they are mixed in
an effort to precipitate the polyolefin. Example 1
clearly shows the low polynuclear aromatic solvent
containing the polyolefin is then poured into
ispropanol. The Examiner maintains that once the
polyolefin and the hydrocarbon solvent are poured
into the isopropanol, then appellants’ instantly
claimed single phase liquid solution is formulated.
[Examiner’s answer, pp. 3-4.]
We disagree with the examiner’s conclusion. It is
important to point out that appealed claim 20 recites a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007