Appeal No. 1998-2813
Application No. 08/463,203
Based on the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of independent claim 19 on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e). We will likewise sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 31, 32/19 and 36/19 on this basis, since we find no
arguments in appellants' brief or reply brief that specifically
address these claims and which particularly point out any error
in the examiner's position. As indicated in 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), merely pointing out differences in what the claims
cover is not an argument as to why the claims are separately
patentable.
Next for our consideration is the examiner's rejection of
claims 20, 22/20, 29, 30 and 33 through 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Fink or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fink. Claim 20,
which depends from claim 19, is directed to the specific 3D-
printing process used by appellants and sets forth the steps of
a) spreading a first dispersion of a biocompatible polymer powder
onto a bed, b) printing a layer comprising a second dispersion of
biocompatible polymer in a solvent which binds the first
biocompatible polymer powder to the second biocompatible polymer
at locations where it is desired to have walls, and c) repeating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007