Appeal 2006-2524
Application 10/664,147
we AFFIRM this rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Navarrete discloses a lead acid battery
separator comprising a microporous membrane including an ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), a filler, processing oil and a
lignin (Answer 2-3). The Examiner further finds that Navarrete discloses
grass lignins, as well as the reduction of antimony poisoning by use of the
UHMWPE separator (Answer 4). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claims
are anticipated (id.).
Appellant argues that the compound disclosed in Navarrete is “wood
lignins,” which is not the same as the “grass lignins” as claimed (Br. 7).
Appellant argues that Navarrete, at page 8, ll. 16-17, teaches that “[l]ignins
refers to those by-products of wood pulping operations” and there is no
mention or suggestion to use any other type of lignins (id.). Appellant
submits that the “only real question” before the Board is whether Navarrete
teaches the use of grass lignins (Reply Br. 6).2
Anticipation is a question of fact. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Answer 3) that Navarrete discloses a “lignin” generally
2 We note that Appellant submits that the “only question” before the Board
is if the feature of grass lignins as claimed differentiates the invention from
the wood lignins “clearly taught” by Navarrete (Br. 14). Although this
“question” differs from the “question” posed by the Reply Brief, we believe
that both questions are answered in our Opinion infra. We refer to and cite
from the “Amended Reply Brief” dated Feb. 8, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007