specifying any temperature.2 A glass cloth was impregnated with
the mixed solution at 55°C. (col. 8, ll. 47-48) but the examiner
has not shown any melt blending in Example 2 of Chao.
Furthermore, the examiner has provided no support for the basis of
the conclusion quoted above, namely that melt blend temperatures
of from 150°C. to 240°C. are desired “to uniformly mix the
components while preventing premature curing.” Answer, page 4.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief
and Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not provided
an adequate factual basis for the conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection under section 103(a) over
Chao is reversed.
C. Summary
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chao is reversed.
2Appellants and the examiner do not contest the fact that toluene boils at 111°C. (Brief, page 8),
and therefore the temperature of the “hot toluene” must be below this temperature.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007