Appeal No. 1998-1226
Application No. 08/420,330
C. The Rejection over Friend, Geus and Tomoda
We also cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting. The examiner’s only finding with regard to Friend
is “thus the patented claims are broader than the pending ones
and are thus obvious as claiming duplicating [sic] subject
matter.” Answer, page 4. The claims of Friend recite an
electrically conductive composite comprising a polymeric
binder with carbon fibrils incorporated in an amount not
greater than 30% by weight (see claim 1). Friend discloses
that the polymeric binders can be thermoplastic resins such as
polyurethane (see col. 3, ll. 19-32, and claims 21 and 22).
However, the claims on appeal all recite an elastomeric
matrix. Accordingly, as correctly argued by appellants on
page 24 of the Brief, the composite of Friend and the claimed
composite are different. On this record, the examiner has not
presented any reasoning or pointed to any evidence as to why
an elastomeric matrix would have been obvious over the claimed
polymeric binder of Friend. As discussed above, Geus and
Tomoda have not been applied to show the matrix material and
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007