Appeal No. 1998-2636
Application No. 08/534,961
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Mathis et al. (Mathis) 3,637,907 Jan. 25, 1972
Kaminsky et al. (Kaminsky) 4,542,199 Sep. 17, 1985
Turner 4,752,597 Jun. 21, 1988
Ewen et al. (Ewen) 4,937,299 Jun. 26, 1990
The reference of record set forth below is relied upon by
the appellant in support of his nonobviousness position and is
discussed in the brief and in the Staniek declaration of
record as well as in the answer:
Mulhaupt, “International Conference on Advances in
Stabilization and Controlled Degradation of Polymers,” pp.
181-196 (1990).
All of the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mathis taken with Kaminsky, Turner and
Ewen.1
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for an exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
1As indicated on page 2 of the brief, the appealed claims
have been grouped together. Accordingly, in resolving the
issues before us on this appeal, we need focus only on
independent claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007