Appeal No. 2006-0440
Application No. 10/291,933
17. The method of claim 1 wherein the die is
oriented at an angle of from about 8° to about 40°
from the surface of the substrate.
18. The method of claim 1 wherein the die
divides the inlet stream of polymeric reaction mixture
in a series of branched successive stages to provide
the plural outlet streams, the streams of each stage
being provided by branched division of corresponding
streams of the preceding stage.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Zimmer et al. 4,550,681 Nov. 5, 1985
(Zimmer)
Grimm et al. 5,601,881 Feb. 11, 1997
(Grimm)
Claims 1 through 9, 17, and 18 on appeal stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grimm in view of
Zimmer. (Examiner’s answer mailed on August 11, 2005 at 3-9.1)
We affirm. Because we are in complete agreement with the
examiner’s factual findings and legal conclusions, we adopt them
1 The statement of rejection in the answer contains a
typographical error. Specifically, it appears that claims 17
and 18 were inadvertently omitted from the statement. It is
clear, however, that the examiner has maintained the final of
these claims (answer at 5-6; final Office action at 4) and the
appellants have fully responded to the rejection of these claims
(substitute appeal brief filed on May 20, 2005 at 6-8).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007