Appeal No. 2006-2268
Application No. 10/468,448
After consideration of the present record, we determine that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
disputed claim language covers a polyurethane-modified addition
copolymer comprising component (A)(b) comprises at least one
olefinically unsaturated monomer selected from the group
specified in claims 13 and 14. The Examiner’s rejection of the
claim is without merit because claims 13 and 14 are dependent
upon claim 1 which clearly specifies that more than one
olefinically unsaturated monomer can be present as component
(A)(b). Thus, the component (A)(b) as specified in claims 13
and 14 is not indefinite or confusing a suggested by the
Examiner. Consequently, the Examiner’s rejection on this basis
is reversed.
PRIOR ART REJECTIONS3
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 14, 16 to 21 and
23 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The Examiner
acknowledges in the statement of the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection that there is some selection, i.e., picking and
The Examiner has determined that the German document3
WO 01/02502 A1 is an appropriate prior art reference under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). (See Answer, p. 3). Appellants have not challenged this
determination by the Examiner in the Briefs. (See the Briefs
generally).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007