Appeal 2006-1219
Application 10/636,148
(b) removing oxygen from the suspension polymerization
mixture and the vessel by introducing an inert gas for a time sufficient
to produce an atmosphere in the vessel containing no more than
5 percent oxygen;
(c) allowing the monomer mixture to polymerize; and
(d) washing the bead with an aprotic organic solvent.
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Meitzner US 4,486,313 Dec. 4, 1984
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Meitzner.
In the Appellants’ Brief, only the features of independent claims 1, 6,
and 10 have been argued with specificity. None of the dependent claims
have been separately argued in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 13, 2004). As a consequence, in our
disposition of this appeal, we will focus on the above noted representative
independent claims with which the dependent claims will stand or fall. See
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete discussion of
the opposing viewpoints expressed by the Appellants and by the Examiner
concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
Upon review of the entire record including the respective positions
advanced by Appellants and the Examiner with respect to the rejection
before us, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants that the Examiner
has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007