Appeal 2006-2380
Application 10/791,079
2. Claims 12, 13, 32, 45, 46, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of Bray.
3. Claims 14, 15, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gardner in view of Luk.
Appellants separately argue independent claims 1 and 36. Therefore, in
accordance with their ultimate dependencies, claims 2-7, 9-15, 32, 34, 35,
and 37-51 stand or fall with these independent claims.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) GARDNER
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s application of Gardner’s
disclosure at column 8, lines 62-68, which is directed to a thermoplastic-
thermoset binder combination, to calculate the amount of binder in
Gardner’s Example 2 is based on hindsight because Example 2 is limited to
using thermoplastic binder (Br. 9-10). Appellants further argue that, even if
Gardner’s column 8 disclosure is applicable to Example 2, the amount of
binder in the thermoplastic-thermoset binder of column 8 includes both the
thermoplastic portion and thermoset portion of the binder, which calculates
to a binder percentage outside the claimed range (i.e., 3.5% by weight) (Br.
10-11).
over Gardner. Appellants understand that claim 44 is rejected over the art of
record by their statement that “these claims (1-7, 9-15, 32 and 34-51) are
finally rejected” (Br. 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013