Appeal No. 2003-2020
Application No. 08/944,208
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants indicate on
page 5 of the Brief that the claims "should not stand or fall
together." However, appellants have presented separate arguments
in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8) (which was in effect
at the time of the Brief) only for claim 15. Therefore, we will
treat claims 3, 4, and 9 through 14 as one group, with claim 13
as representative, and we will treat claim 15 as a second group.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse both the enablement rejection and the obviousness
rejection of claim 15 and affirm the obviousness rejection of
claims 3, 4, and 9 through 14.
Regarding the enablement rejection of claim 15, the examiner
states (Final Rejection, page 2) that the claim language
"consisting of" limits the antistatic polymer to the polyether
ester-amide recited in the claim. On the other hand, the
examiner asserts that the specification states that the
antistatic polymer contains polyether ester-amide, which "means
that the anti-static polymer is not composed of merely polyether
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007