Appeal No. 2004-2031
Application No. 09/773,286
index values. In the reply brief, appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s rebuttal in this regard.
Therefore, we also affirm the anticipation rejection of
claim 18.
With regard to claim 24, appellants argue on page 7 of the
brief, that Muenstermann does not anticipate claim 24 because
Muenstermann fails to disclose the ability that when the molded
polyurea is exposed to moisture, it takes up no more than 2
weight percent water based on the weight of molded polyurea
polymer.
We refer to page 5 of the answer, wherein the examiner
states that this characteristic is also deemed an inherent
property of the disclosed polyurea set forth in Muenstermann.
We agree and refer to our discussion above regarding the burden
involved in an inherency rejection, and additionally note that
it is well settled that the Patent and Trademark Office can
require appellants to prove that a function or property relied
upon for novelty is not possessed by prior art otherwise meeting
the limitations of the claims. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,
195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
claims 17, 18, 21-25, and 35.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 19, 33, 34, and
36-45
We consider claim 19 in this rejection (on page 3 of the
brief, appellants state claims 19, 33, 34, and 36-45 stand or
fall together).
We refer to pages 5-7 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007