Appeal No. 2006-2617
Application No. 10/729,446
Thus, as discussed supra, Sosa describes a process in which a starting
material meeting the limitations recited in claim 18 is subjected to both of
the process steps recited in claim 18. Because it is transparent, the resulting
product meets claim 18’s haze limitation of less than or equal to 12 percent.
We see nothing in the cited paragraphs, or anywhere else in the
Specification, that requires the “impact modified polystyrene” made by
claim 18’s process to have any components other than the styrene-butadiene-
styrene elastomer and polystyrene present in Sosa’s final product.
We note that Sosa states that HIPS can be distinguished from TIPS
because the rubber component of HIPS “is present as a distribution of
different sized, well-defined spherical particles, ranging from about 0.5 up to
about 15 microns in diameter.” (Sosa col. 1, ll. 34-37.) However, as pointed
out by the Examiner (Answer 8), Appellants’ claims do not contain any
limitation with respect to the particle size of the rubber component within
the claimed polymer. Claim 18 is therefore not distinguishable from Sosa on
this basis.
Appellants further argue that Sosa’s TIPS materials are prepared
“using an elastomers reactor system that is unique to TIPS manufacture.”
(Br. 4.) However, claim 18 does not contain any limitation regarding the
apparatus used to practice the claimed process. Claim 18 therefore does not
exclude the use of Sosa’s apparatus.
To summarize, the fact that the reference uses the term “TIPS” to
describe the final product does not negate the fact that Sosa describes a
process in which a starting material identical to that recited in claim 18 is
subjected to the steps recited in the claim. Sosa’s final product is transparent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013