Appeal No. 2001-0676
Application No. 08/941,132
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the claims in each group
stand or fall together with the broadest representative claim
therein, namely claims 9 and 10, consistent with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (2000). Claims 9 and 10 are reproduced below:
9. A process for the production of a graft-copolymerized natural
rubber which comprises deproteinizing natural rubber and then
graft-copolymerizing the natural rubber.
10. A process for the production of an epoxidized natural rubber
which comprises deproteinizing natural rubber and then epoxidizing
the natural rubber.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Kondo et al. (Kondo) 4,208,490 Jun. 17, 1980
Hayashi et al. (Hayashi) 4,528,340 Jul. 9, 1985
Burlett et al. (Burlett) 5,118,546 Jun. 2, 1992
Yasuyuki et al. (Yasuyuki) 0 584 597 A1 Mar. 2, 1994
(Published European Patent Application)
Claims 9 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yasuyuki and either
Kondo, Burlett or Hayashi.
In reaching our decisions on the issues raised in this appeal,
we have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied
prior art, including all the arguments and evidence advanced by the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007