Appeal No. 2003-2020
Application No. 08/944,208
which is not suggested by Kato and Yamamoto. However, this
feature is not recited in the claims. Nonetheless, since the
combination of Kato and Yamamoto uses the same thermoplastic
resins as disclosed by appellants, the combination would be
expected to exhibit the same properties.
Appellants assert (Brief, pages 7-8) that the examiner
ignored the claim limitation that the heat deforming temperatures
of the two resins must be different. However, since Kato
discloses the same resins as used by appellants, the heat
deforming temperatures must be different. Furthermore, Kato
discloses (column 2, lines 16-22) that ABS does not have high
heat resistance, which is a problem to be solved. Since Kato
combines ABS with polycarbonate to obtain a composition that does
have high heat resistance, Kato at the very least implies that
the polycarbonate is added because it has a higher heat
resistance than the ABS.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 8) that Kato does not disclose
antistatic elements. That, of course, is why the examiner
rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and used a secondary
reference, Yamamoto. Similarly, appellants argue that Yamamoto
does not discuss inorganic fillers or rigidity. Again, the
rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and Kato teaches using an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007