Appeal No. 2005-2652
Application No. 10/066,990
additives can be chosen from a laundry list of conventional
additives and are added to the foam or adhesive to obtain the
desired end properties. See, e.g., the specification, pages 12
and 18. Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in
representative claims 1, 13 and 232 and a copy of these claims is
appended to this decision.
PRIOR ART REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
support of the Section 103 rejection before us are:
Bonk et al. (Bonk) 4,751,269 Jun. 14, 1988
Parsons et al. (Parsons) 5,851,663 Dec. 22, 1998
2 According to the appellants (the Brief, page 11), “[f]or
purposes of this appeal, the appealed claims will stand or fall
together.” Consistent with this position, the appellants have not
separately argued the patentability of the invention defined by the
individual claims on appeal. See the Brief in its entirety.
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claims 1, 13 and 23
as representative of the claims on appeal subjected to the different
grounds of rejection set forth in the Answer and decide the propriety
of the examiner’s rejections set forth in the Answer based on these
claims alone consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003) and 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
−3−
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007