Appeal No. 2006-1673 Παγε 8
Application No. 09/913,725
and 4 of the reply brief filed January 03, 2006 together with the
corresponding disclosure of Takayama.3
The examiner’s discussion about the polyolefin component of
the resin composition of Takayama at page 6 of the answer has
been considered. However, as appellants explain in the reply
briefs, the specific polyolefin used by Takayama is a chemically
modified polyolefin, not the polyolefin employed by Yano.
Moreover, as noted above, Takayama requires other components in
the resin composition besides the modified polyolefin for use
with the lubricants disclosed therein. Against that backdrop,
the examiner’s attempt at suggesting that the polyolefin
component represents a significant commonality between the resin
compositions of Yano and Takayama that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to use one of the alternative
3 We note that the examiner did not specifically respond to the arguments
furnished in either of appellants’ reply briefs. Indeed, we specifically advised the
examiner to address the arguments in appellants’ reply brief filed October 22, 2004 at
page 4 of our Remand mailed September 28, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007