Appeal No. 1998-2813
Application No. 08/463,203
that formed in the process noted above in Fink are "substantially
identical" one to the other, and the examiner has provided no
reasons which mandate such a conclusion. In our view, the
polymer/solvent bonding of polymeric powders in appellants'
method and the laser photo polymerization suggested in Fink will
result in devices with matrix structures that are clearly
different from one another. Thus, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)/§ 103
based on Fink. It follows that the examiner's rejection of claim
22/20 will also not be sustained.
Claims 29 and 30 depend from claim 19, while claims 33
through 35 are multiply dependent, through claim 32, from either
claim 19 or claim 21. As the examiner's rejection applies to
those claims which depend from claim 19, we note that 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. Finding no specific arguments from
appellants, we will therefore sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 29 and 30, 33/32/19, 34/32/19 and 35/34/32/19. Our
disposition of claims 33 through 35 as they depend from
independent claim 21 will be clear from our discussions infra.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007