Appeal No. 2001-1286 Page 2
Application No. 09/263,795
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Shono et al. (Shono) 5,130,136 Jul. 14, 1992
The Rejection
Claims 1 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shono.
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) applicants’ Brief (Paper No. 9); (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 10); and
(4) the above-cited prior art reference.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner’s rejection.
Discussion
Initially, we note that an oral hearing had been scheduled in this appeal for
April 9, 2002. On reflection, however, this merits panel decided that a hearing was not
necessary and so notified the applicants (Paper No. 14). See 37 CFR § 1.194(c).
Each independent claim on appeal requires “a non-porous round polyethylene
powder.” Having reviewed the Shono Patent in its entirety, we find that Shono does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007