Ex parte KIESER et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1998-1412                                                                                      
              Application No. 08/397,124                                                                                


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                            

                      According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a composite material useful                 
               as a solar screen in growing plants.  The composite comprises a transparent polymer and                  
               a green interference pigment to reflect the green portion of visible light.  (Brief, page                
               2).  Claim 12 which is representative of the invention is reproduced below:                              
               12.    Solar radiation screening composite material which comprises;                                     
                             a transparent polymer selected from the group consisting of low                            
                             density polyethylene, ethylenevinylacetate copolymer,                                      
                             polytetrafluorethylene [sic, polytetrafluoroethylene],                                     
                             polyvinylidenechloride, polyvinyl chloride, polycarbonate,                                 
                             polymethylacrylate or mixtures thereof; and                                                
                             a green interference pigment.                                                              
                      As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following reference:                   
               Armanini                           5,008,143                          Apr. 16, 1991                      
                                                 THE REJECTION                                                          

                      The Examiner entered the following ground of rejection:                                           
                      Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                        
               Armanini.  (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).                                                                  
                                                     OPINION                                                            




                                                          -2-                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007