Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
1 ii) The Appellant’s Arguments – Claim 28
2 Claim 28 reads as follows:
3 The method of claim 27 wherein the curative contains two or
4 more active hydrogens.
5 The appellant argues that claim 28 contains the further
6 limitation that the “curative contains two or more active
7 hydrogens” and that the examiner has not met his burden of proof
8 by simply stating that the curative was known per se. (Appeal
9 Brief, paragraph spanning pages 7 or 8).
10 This argument is facially without any substantive merit. De
11 Keyser states, expressly, that the epoxy resin is “reacted with
12 compounds containing at least two active hydrogen atoms.” (Column
13 1, lines 33-34).
14 We therefore affirm this rejection as it applies to claim 28.
15 iii) The Appellant’s Arguments – Claims 29-33; 35-41; 43;
16 45-46; and 48-54
17 Claim 29 reads as follows:
18 The method of claim 27 wherein the curative is an
19 alkanolamine.
20 The appellant argues, for each of these claims, that they
21 contain a “further limitation” and that the examiner has not met
22 his burden of proof by simply stating that the particular curative
23 or resin was known per se. (Appeal Brief, spanning pages 7 to
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007