Appeal No. 2002-2261
Application No. 09/568,111
Appellants submit at page 3 of the Brief "[t]he patent-
ability of dependent claims 2-22 will stand or fall with
claim 1." Accordingly, we will limit our consideration to the
examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, with which all
the appealed claims stand or fall. We note that appellants' only
argument with respect to the separate rejection using Schlom as a
tertiary reference is that Schlom fails to cure the asserted
deficiencies of Lacz '450 and Lacz '473.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the specification data relied upon
in support thereof. We are in complete agreement with the
examiner, however, that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection.
There is no dispute that Lacz '450, like appellants,
discloses a paper coating composition comprising the presently
claimed hydrophobically modified high amylose starch having an
amylose content of at least 40% by weight and modified with a
hydrocarbon group of 6 to 18 carbon atoms, as well as up to 10%
by weight of polyvinyl alcohol. Appellants also have not
challenged the examiner's legal conclusion that it would have
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007