Ex Parte BEUZELIN et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1999-0918                                                                                      
              Application No. 08/399,690                                                                                

                                                  BACKGROUND                                                            
                      The invention is directed to a coextrusion binder composition including two                       
               graft copolymers.  The compositions are said to be useful as an adhesive layer in                        
               multilayer composites.  (Specification, p. 1).  Claim 1 which is representative of the                   
               invention is attached in an appendix to this decision.                                                   
                      As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies on the following references:                      
               Akkapeddi et al. (Akkapeddi)              4,902,749                    Feb. 20, 1990                     
               van der Loos et al. (EP ‘512)             EP 048512                    Mar. 31, 1982                     
               European Patent Application                                                                              
                      The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 4, 6, 10, 11 and 17 to 19 under 35 U.S.C.                       
               § 103(a) over the combination of Akkapeddi and EP ‘512.1  (Answer, p. 3).                                
                      Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and                       
               Appellants, we refer to the Examiner's Answer and to Appellants’ briefs for a                            
               complete exposition thereof.                                                                             
                      The Appellants submit that “the claims do not stand or fall together.”  (Brief,                   
               p. 4.)  But in the “Argument” section of the brief, the Appellants merely recite the                     
               invention covered by claims 6, 10, 11 and 17 to 19 and the statement the claims are                      



                      1  The rejection of claims 1 to 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been         
               withdrawn by the Examiner.  (Answer, p. 2).                                                              
                                                         - 2 -                                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007