Appeal No. 2003-1625
Application No. 09/341,669
molecular weight (e.g., compare specification examples 1-4 with
examples 5-8), and a core and shell may be differentiated via a
difference in physical properties as the appellants themselves
concede in their aforequoted argument. Moreover, as correctly
explained by the examiner in the answer, this last mentioned
viewpoint is supported by the disclosure in column 4, lines 52-
57, of Wanat that his “[p]referred particles [i.e., core/shell
polymer particles] are those in which the core layer and the
outer layer thereof comprise resins which are made from the same
monomer(s) that are used to prepare the matrix resin of the
composition, that is, homopolymers of methyl methacrylate or
random copolymers of methyl methacrylate” (emphasis added).
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, we hereby
sustain the examiner’s Section 112, first paragraph, rejection of
claim 32.
Additionally, we agree with the examiner’s finding that
claims 28 and 29 are anticipated by either Wanat or Numrich.
Contrary to the appellants’ argument, the “consisting essentially
of” language of these claims does not exclude from the claimed
subject matter the core/shell polymer particles which are present
in the respective molding compositions of Wanat and Numrich.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007