Appeal No. 2000-0595
Serial No. 09/025,400
light of the specification defining the various “curable epoxies”
within the scope of the claims (specification, pages 7-8, as
cited by appellants on page 6 of the Brief). Therefore, we
cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection under the second
paragraph of section 112.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner finds that Chao discloses a method of making
a composition comprising blending at 55°C. PPE, bisphenol A
diglycidyl ether polyepoxide, and an aluminum
tris(acetylacetonate) curing agent in the presence of a solvent
(Answer, page 3, citing col. 8, Example 2 of Chao). The examiner
recognizes that the claimed PS is not exemplified by Chao but
finds that grafted and ungrafted PS is suggested by Chao to
modify the PPE (id.). The examiner also recognizes that the
claimed melt blending at a temperature of greater than 150°C. is
not recited by Chao (Answer, page 4).1 The examiner finds that
Example 2 of Chao “exhibits the evaporation of the organic
solvent at about 150°C followed by curing at 240°C.” Id. From
1The examiner also recognizes that the examples of Chao do not disclose or suggest the claimed
method “without addition of solvent” (Answer, page 4; see claim 7 on appeal). The examiner finds that the
term “typically dissolved” in relation to the solvent of Chao suggests the absence of a solvent (id.). Since
our decision need only consider claim 1 on appeal, as discussed below, we do not address this limitation of
claim 7.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007