Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 23
Application No. 10/068,243
along with claims 4 and 5 which depend therefrom, and which have
not been separately argued. Turning to claims 2, 3 and 6, we
note at the outset our interpretation, supra, of the term
homogeneous. From the disclosure of Thompson of having two
layers, each which is homogeneous, we find that the term
homogeneous of claim 6 is met. We turn next to the issue of the
polymers recited in claims 2, 3 and 6. From the disclosure of
Thompson of using nylon, which appellant lists along with the
claimed polymers in the specification as being suitable for the
claimed roller, we find that the disclosure of super-tough nylon
in Thompson would have suggested one or more of the polymers set
forth in claims 2, 3 and 6. Appellant presents no convincing
reasons why the disclosed super-tough nylon would not have
suggested the polymers recited in claims 2,, 3 and 6.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is sustained, along with claims 8 and 9, as appellants
have not provided any reasons why they believe that the physical
properties recited in claims 8 and 9 would not have been taught
or suggested by Thompson and Rowles.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 11 and 12 under
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007