Appeal No. 1999-0139
Application No. 08/542,576
and the examiner has provided no evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the greater weight of the evidence of record favors a
finding that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation of the invention recited in any of the
appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner provides no explanation as to why Pashby
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the
art, modifying the process disclosed therein such that the
adhesive has a coming-out length and a water absorption rate
which are within the ranges required by the appellants’
claims. We
therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Pashby.
The examiner relies upon Newman (col. 2, lines 57-67) for
evidence that polyimides are heat resistant (answer, page 4).
The examiner does not explain how Newman remedies the
deficiency in Pashby discussed above. Hence, we reverse the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007