Appeal No. 1997-4412
Application 08/372,539
Claims 28, 29, 31-33, and 35-38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description).
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
OPINION
The examiner states that the specification is directed to a
blend of a polyolefin and a rubber taken together with a
plasticizer. (Answer, page 4). The examiner concludes that no
support exists for a composition consisting essentially of a
polyolefin and a plasticizer. (Answer, page 4). The examiner
states that every example in the specification contains a rubbery
component (Answer, page 7).
Appellant argues that the specification does convey to the
artisan that separate phases of thermoplastic polyolefin and
rubber were recognized by appellant. Appellant refers to page 1,
lines
16-17, page 3, lines 5-6, page 6, lines 5-9, and page 13, lines
21-23 of the specification in this regard. (Brief, pages 3-4).
Appellant also refers to the paragraph bridging pages 6-7, and to
Tables 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the specification.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007