Appeal No. 2005-2723
Application No. 10/014,084
OPINION1
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants
and the Examiner, we affirm for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Fitzgibbon does not anticipate the claimed invention
because: (1) Appellants' process requires at least two different reaction
components; (2) Appellants' invention requires that at least one reaction
component be divided into two portions which portions differ only with respect to
filler content; and (3) Appellants' process does not add filler in a stream which is
independent of the first and/or second reaction component(s) but rather
incorporates the filler into one or both of the reaction components prior to
combination with the second reaction component. (Brief, p. 4).
Fitzgibbon discloses that it is known to carry out a process for the
production of filler-containing molded parts from a free-flowing reaction mixture.
Fitzgibbon discloses the bulk material can be divided into two streams each
containing reactive components. (Col. 6, ll. 50-55). Fitzgibbon also discloses
1 We will consider the claims separately to the extent that the claims have been argued separately in the
brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007