Appeal No. 1998-0269
Application No. 08/396,645
by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above
noted rejections.
OPINION
These rejections cannot be sustained.
As correctly pointed out by the appellants, Schrenk
contains no teaching or suggestion of the here claimed method
steps for producing the previously described composite. More
specifically, we have studied this reference with particular
attention devoted to the specific portions of patentee’s
disclosure referred to in the examiner’s answer but find
therein no teaching or even suggestion of the here claimed
method whereby a composite is formed of alternating layers of
incompatible plastics in which a layer of one plastic is
discontinuous at regular intervals to form gaps that are
filled with the other plastic. On the contrary, the method of
Schrenk is explicitly disclosed as forming layers that are
continuous and uniform (e.g., see the paragraph bridging
columns 4 and 5).
Various comments made in the answer suggest that the
examiner may believe it is appropriate to ignore certain
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007