Appeal No. 2003-1625
Application No. 09/341,669
Under these circumstances, we will focus on independent claims
14, 28 and 32 as respectively representing the claims involved in
the rejections advanced on this appeal. Rather than reiterate
the respective positions advocated by the appellants and by the
examiner concerning the above noted rejections, we refer to the
brief and reply brief and to the answer for a complete exposition
thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons well stated in the answer, we will sustain
each of the rejections before us. We add the following comments
for emphasis and completeness.
With respect to all of the rejections, it is the appellants’
fundamental position that their specification disclosure
descriptively supports the claim 32 requirement that the recited
polymer “is not a core/shell polymer” and further that this
disclosure requires the other appealed claims to be interpreted
as excluding a core/shell polymer. As a consequence of this
position, the appellants consider the appealed claims to comply
with the written description requirement in Section 112, first
paragraph, and to patentably distinguish over the Wanat and
Numrich references since the molding compositions of these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007