Appeal No. 2003-1067
Application No. 09/775,662
We stated in our decision that "we will sustain the examiner's
rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer"
(page 4 of decision, first paragraph). The Examiner's Answer
incorporated the rejection of Paper No. 5 wherein the examiner
states that Jones' teaching of absorbent material and cellulose-
based material would have rendered obvious the selection of any
one of a number of well-known cellulose based absorbent
materials, including the claimed butyl cellulose acetate. As for
claims 17, 18, 27 and 28, it should be apparent from our decision
that the particular components of the admittedly known conversion
coat solution would have been an obvious choice for one of
ordinary skill in the art.
We also do not subscribe to appellant's position that our
decision includes a new ground of rejection because our
discussion of Brockman was more expansive than the examiner's.
As noted above, we affirmed the examiner's rejections for the
reasons set forth by the examiner. Furthermore, it is well
settled that a decision by the Board is on the merits of the
examiner's rejection and not necessarily on the examiner's
reasoning.
We also do not agree with appellant that "[t]he Board's
decision is completely silent as to the issue of lack of
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007