Ex Parte PAKUSCH et al - Page 9


               Appeal No. 2000-1832                                                                                                   
               Application 08/868,736                                                                                                 

               [Citation omitted.]”); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979) (the                            
               claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses                         
               the thrust of the rejection); In re Blondel, 499 F.2d at 1317, 182 USPQ at 298 (the indirect                           
               evidence provided a reliable indication of the performance of the closest claimed and prior art                        
               compounds).                                                                                                            
                       Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have                       
               weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Schulze with appellants’ countervailing                                   
               evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention                                    
               encompassed by appealed claims 33, 35, 37, 38, 40 through 48, 50 through 54, 56 through 59                             
               and 61 through 63 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                                 
                       Turning now to the ground of rejection of appealed claim 43 under § 112, second                                
               paragraph, we find it clear from the plain language of appealed claim 43, as interpreted in light                      
               of the written description in the specification, see, e.g., Morris, supra, that, as pointed out by                     
               the examiner (answer, page 3), hydrolyzed polyvinylacetate, a deplasticizing assistant, “is                            
               mixed into the dried addition-polymer powder,” which is a step of the claimed process                                  
               encompassed by appealed claim 32 but not of the claimed process encompassed by appealed                                
               claim 33.  Thus, we agree with the examiner’s conclusion that claim 43 is improperly in the                            
               lineage of appealed claim 33 (id.), and, accordingly, affirm this ground of rejection.                                 
                       In summary, we affirm the grounds of rejection of appealed claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. §                          
               112, second paragraph, and of appealed claims 33, 35, 37, 38, 40 through 48, 50 through 54, 56                         
               through 59 and 61 through 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Schulze, and                               
               reverse all other grounds of rejection.                                                                                
                       The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.                                                                   




                       No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be                          
               extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).                                                                                      
                                                       AFFIRMED-IN-PART                                                               


                                                                - 9 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007