Appeal No. 2006-0511 Page 8
Application No. 10/258,312
is limited to specific molecular weights for each block copolymer,
while neither the claims on appeal nor Wang are so limited.
Second, the elastomeric binders in the Example and Comparative
Example differ markedly in diblock content, which content is not
recited in the claimed subject matter nor in Wang. Third, as
correctly noted by the examiner (Answer, page 7), the numerous
additives used in the Examples are not recited or required by the
claims on appeal. As admitted by appellants, these additives may
have no, some or a major influence on the resulting rheological
properties of the elastomeric layer (Brief, page 7). Therefore
appellants have not established that the properties of the claimed
subject matter differ from the properties of the elastomeric layer
disclosed by Wang (e.g., see Example 1 of Wang).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of the reference evidence, which case has not
been overcome by appellants’ arguments or evidence. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-28, 31-32, 34, 36-38 and 40
under section 102(b) over Wang.
B. The Rejection over Wang in view of Peterson
The examiner adopts the findings from Wang as discussed above
(Answer, page 5). The examiner applies Peterson to show that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007