Appeal No. 2006-1586
Application No. 09/933,360
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we find that the examiner’s
rejections are well-founded and in accordance with current
patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections.
There is no dispute that Woldenberg describes a process
for making a shaped product from thermoplastic polycarbonate
comprising the claimed steps of producing a polycarbonate melt
by phase interface and introducing the melt produced into a
forming apparatus, such as an injection molding machine and an
extruder. Also, there is no dispute that Woldenberg fails to
describe granulating solid polycarbonate and melting the
granules before they are introduced into the extruder or
injection molding machine. However, it is appellants’
contention that since it is conventional in the art to employ a
granulation step, and Woldenberg discloses that preliminary
mixing of conventional additives may be carried out at room
temperature, the Woldenberg disclosure must be read as including
the conventional step of granulating.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007