Appeal No. 2002-1622 Page 3
Application No. 08/735,836
OPINION
We commend both the Appellants and the Examiner for their clarity in presenting the
issues on appeal. Both the claims to be reviewed and the points at issue are clearly delineated.
That said, we affirm and, in so doing, we incorporate by reference the cogent analysis presented
by the Examiner on pages 3-9 of the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Obviousness
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6, 21, 24-26, and 38-42 as obvious over Birkholz in
view of Tushaus. Appellants indicate that claims 1, 3, 6, 21, and 24-26 stand or fall separately
from claims 38-42. In accordance with Appellants’ grouping, the Examiner’s analysis focuses
on the obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1 and 38. We select claims 1 and 38 to
represent the issues on appeal.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a composition which is a mixture of polymer (a)(thermoplastic or
elastomeric thermoset or mixture thereof) and polymer (b)(organosiloxane polyurea block
copolymer). Birkholz describes mixing polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) with an organo
polysiloxane polyurea copolymer of the type described by Tushaus (Birkholz at col. 2, ll. 3-8).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that PVP meets the requirements of
Appellants’ polymer (a) nor the finding that the copolymer of Tushaus meets the requirements of
Appellants’ polymer (b)(Answer at 4; Brief at 8-9). Instead, Appellants argue that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007