Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
art, that the closest prior art is not close, and they are
entitled to extrapolate their data. (Appeal Brief, page 29, line
1 et seq.). We disagree. The appellants have erroneously
concluded that Furness is not close; but a fair reading of the
specification of Furness indicates that it is close to the claimed
subject matter, principally by virtue of the manner in which the
appellants have chosen to draft their claims. We have already
discussed the lack of nexus and the fact that the evidence is not
commensurate with the claimed subject matter above. We therefore
are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants’ Point 16: The Declaration.
Appellants urge that even though the declaration related to
both Furness and Gardikes, it is not irrelevant and the examiner
should not disregard it. (Appeal Brief, page 29, line 29 et
seq.). We agree, and have addressed the substance of the
declaration above. It lacks nexus and is not commensurate in
scope with the claimed subject matter. The appellants interpret
the Furness reference much differently than it is actually
written, and their claims much more narrowly than they are
written. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Finally, the appellants argue that claims 26 and 27 are
independently patentable in that the phenolic resin is prepared in
30
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007