Appeal No. 2005-0333
Application No. 09/918,074
for example, is directed to using a specific polyolefin article as
a battery separator.
On this record, the examiner has not demonstrated that the
prior art references relied upon would have rendered the claimed
subject matter obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within
the meaning of Section 103.
OTHER ISSUE
Although Sibley is directed to using a fish attractant in a
thermoset(cross-linked) plastic, it mentions in “BACKGROUND ART”
known scented fish-baits comprising fibrous plastic net works and
sponge-like devices containing fish attractants. See column 1,
line 60 to column 2, line 24. It is not clear from Sibley that the
fibrous plastic or sponge-like devices of the known scented fish-
baits are made of a thermoplastic plastic or a thermoset plastic.
Thus, to fully explore the state of the prior art, the examiner is
advised to conduct an additional search to determine whether these
known scented fish-baits are made of the claimed thermoplastic
plastic.
CONCLUSION
In view of the forgoing, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting all the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and advise
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007