Appeal 2006-2524
Application 10/664,147
non-elected invention (Br. 3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134.
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to a battery separator
which comprises a microporous membrane including an ultra high molecular
weight polyethylene, a filler, and a grass lignin (Br. 4). Independent claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A battery separator comprising:
a microporous membrane including
an ultra high molecular weight polyethylene,
a filler, and
a grass lignin.
The Examiner has relied on Navarrete, WO 02/28955 A2, an
International Application published on Apr. 11, 2002, as the sole evidence of
unpatentability (Answer 2). Appellant relies on five references cited in the
Evidence Appendix attached to the Brief as evidence of patentability (Br.
13).
Claims 1-7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Navarrete (Answer 2).1 Based on the totality of the record,
1 The rejection of claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, was
withdrawn in view of the amendment dated July 25, 2005 (see the Advisory
Action dated Aug. 4, 2005). Contrary to the Brief (pages 3-4), the
withdrawn rejection was based on paragraph one, not paragraph two, of
Section 112, and did not involve claims 21-26, but only claims 4 and 9. We
note that claims 4 and 9, as now amended, lack antecedent basis in claims 1
and 6, respectively, for the term “grass lignin source.” In the event of
further or continuing prosecution, this issue should be addressed by the
Examiner and Appellant.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007