Appeal No. 2005-2445
Application No. 10/245,663
wherein
a molar ratio of (I):(II) is from 65:35 to 40:60;
a molar ratio of (III):(IVa plus IVb) is from
90:10 to 50:50;
a molar ratio of the total of (I) and (II) to the
total of (III) and (IV) is substantially 1:1; and
there are 100 to 600 moles of (V) per 100 moles of
(I) plus (II).
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Waggoner et al. (Waggoner) 5,397,502 Mar. 14, 1995
The following rejection is before us for review:1
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Waggoner.
We have carefully considered the entire record in this case
in light of the respective positions taken by the examiner and
the appellants on appeal. Having done so, we conclude that the
examiner's rejection for anticipation should be affirmed.
The basis for our decision is as follows:
Waggoner discloses LCP compositions containing about 15 to
1The examiner had previously rejected the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Waggoner, in addition to rejecting
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection has been withdrawn in the examiner's answer (p. 4).
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) remains.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007