The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte THAUMING KUO
______________
Appeal No. 1999-0125
Application 08/427,534
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellant, in the brief, and based on our
review, find that we cannot the rejection of appealed claims 24 through 29,1 all of the claims in
the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vachon in view of Blount
and Billmeyer.2 For essentially the reasons pointed out by appellant in the brief, the examiner
has failed to make out a prima facie case with respect to both grounds of rejection. We add the
following for emphasis.
1 See the amendment of January 27, 1998 (Paper No. 14) which limits the addition-
copolymerization to solution conditions, deleting bulk conditions. The claims as so amended
appear in Appendix B of the brief.
2 Answer, pages 3-6.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007