Appeal No. 1998-2147
Application No. 08/247,356
rejection of appealed claims 28, 29, 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is affirmed.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102/§ 103
Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crivello.
Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nguyen-Kim.
Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Elsaesser.
We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 29, 36 and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Crivello, Nguyen-Kim or Elsaesser. The Examiner asserts the claimed subject matter
is anticipated or obvious from Crivello, Nguyen-Kim and Elsaesser despite the
references’ failure to describe the claimed molecular weight and softening point of the
polymer. The Examiner asserts these properties are inherently possessed by the
polymers of the references. (See Examiner’s Answer, pages 6 to 12). The Examiner
states the “claims now do not have a upper limit for the molecular weight. The claimed
weight range is encompassed by the prior art. It is apparently inherent that at the upper
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007