Appeal No. 2006-1506 Page 11
Application No. 10/858,576
process claim 1 actually result in a different product for
reasons set forth herein and in the answer.
In sum, the examiner has proffered a reasonable explanation
in the answer as to why a core/shell polymer is not required by
representative product-by-process claim 1 and as to why the
applied references reasonably would have been expected to result
in structurally indistinct products from those embraced by
representative claim 1 that has not been fairly rebutted by
appellants.
It follows that we shall sustain the examiner’s rejections
on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang or Lu is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007