Appeal No. 2004-0770
Application No. 09/795,310
May 13, 1999. See 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1)(1999), 37 CFR § 1.78 and
MPEP § 201.04(b), especially pages 200-15 and 200-16.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
The examiner finds that Cheng discloses a blend of polymers,
with the Second Polymer Component (SPC) corresponding to the first
polymer of claim 1 on appeal and the First Polymer Component (FPC)
corresponding to the second polymer component of claim 1 on appeal
(Answer, page 4). The examiner finds that the SPC disclosed by
Cheng is described as in the form of a graft or block copolymer in
which there are blocks of polypropylene, thus rendering this
polymer elastic (id., citing col. 10, ll. 50 et seq.). The
examiner further finds that Cheng teaches a method of producing the
SPC which is the same or substantially similar to appellants’
method of manufacture (id., citing col. 11, ll. 23-52; col. 8, ll.
8-23; and Examples 1 and 2). The examiner finds that Cheng
discloses the FPC as “mainly amorphous in the undeformed state,”
interpreted by the examiner as indicating an atactic polypropylene
(id., citing col. 5, ll. 44-67). The examiner further finds that
Cheng describes an embodiment of the FPC as a copolymer of atactic
and isostatic propylene (id., citing col. 7, ll. 44 et seq.).
Under section 102, anticipation requires that the prior art
reference disclose, either expressly or under the principles of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007