Appeal No. 2003-2157
Application No. 09/885,311
“true random” copolymers is not persuasive (Brief, page 7). True
random copolymers are not recited in claim 1 on appeal, nor is the
claimed term “random copolymer” interpreted as limited to true
random copolymers.
Appellants argue that “consisting of” as recited in claim 1 on
appeal negates any implication that the term “random” means
anything but truly random (Brief, page 7). This argument is not
well taken since the term “consisting of” only modifies or limits
the term “secondary resin,” limiting this resin to only a random
copolymer but not placing any limits on the random copolymer per
se.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 3-8, 10,
12 and 22 which stand or fall with claim 1, under section 102(b)
over Crystal.
B. The Remaining Rejections
With respect to the rejections over Crystal in view of Katada,
Sato and Mahabadi, appellants only argue that these secondary
references do not supply the deficiencies found in Crystal (Brief,
page 8). Accordingly, we adopt our discussion above regarding
Crystal, as well as the examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law with respect to Katada, Sato and Mahabadi.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007