Ex Parte FRIEDMAN et al - Page 5



          Appeal No. 1999-1189                                                        
          Application 08/219,317                                                      

          (CCPA 1960).  Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection              
          over Batchelor taken with official notice.3                                 
               Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been                      
          established, we need not address the experimental results.  See             
          In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.           
          1984); Rinehart, 531 F.2d at 1052, 189 USPQ at 147.                         
                         Rejection over Batchelor taken with                          
                            official notice and Latiolais                             
               Latiolais discloses a homogeneous blend of a polyolefin and            
          an ethylene alkyl acrylate copolymer (page 5, lines 22-25).                 
          Mixtures of alkyl acrylate comonomers, including methyl acrylate            
          and butyl acrylate, can be used to make the copolymer (page 11,             
          line 33 - page 12, line 7).  Latiolais teaches that “polyolefin”            
          does not include the ethylene alkyl acrylate copolymers of                  
          Latiolais’ invention (page 48, line 29 - page 49, line 6).                  
               The examiner states that he relies upon Latiolais for a                
          demonstration of the state of the art with respect to EMAC and              
          EBAC and for a demonstration of a new method for making both of             











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007