Appeal No. 2005-1907 Page 4
Application No. 09/909,898
The specific rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 1-4, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Terada taken with Tomoi;
2. Claims 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terada
taken with Tomoi and further in view of MacDonald; and
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terada
taken with Tomoi and further in view of MacDonald and further in view of Akao or
Osterholtz or Sata or Saad or Chau.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 11, and 12, we reverse. With respect to the
rejection of claims 5-10, we affirm. We further remand to the application to the Examiner for
further consideration.
OPINION
The Rejection of claims 1-4, 11, and 12 over Terada and Tomoi
Claims 1-4, 11, and 12 all require an anion exchange membrane comprised of a polymer
of formula (1) and a polymer having no ion exchange groups “mixed substantially uniformly.”
As pointed out by Appellants (Brief, p. 5), the specification provides a definition for the phrase
“mixed substantially uniformly.” According to the specification “‘mixed substantially
uniformly’ means that when the resin phase is observed by an optical microscope, the polymer of
the formula (1) and the thermoplastic polymer having no ion exchange groups can not be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007