Ex Parte Sosa et al - Page 9

                 Appeal No. 2006-2617                                                                               
                 Application No. 10/729,446                                                                         

                       We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive.  As discussed supra,                         
                 in our view, claim 18 is sufficiently broad to encompass Sosa’s process of                         
                 making TIPS materials.                                                                             
                       Thus, claim 19 differs from Sosa only in that Sosa does not disclose                         
                 using thermal initiation in the step of polymerizing the styrene monomer.                          
                 Because Bowen discloses that thermal initiation is a useful method of                              
                 inducing polymerization of styrene monomer (Bowen, col. 3, ll. 64-67), we                          
                 agree with the Examiner that claim 19 would have been obvious over Sosa                            
                 and Bowen.                                                                                         
                       We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 19.  Claims 6,                        
                 7, 9-17, and 20-30 fall with claim 19.                                                             
                                                   SUMMARY                                                          
                       Because Sosa discloses a process having all of the elements recited in                       
                 claim 18, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1-5, 8 and 18.                            
                       Because Sosa and Bowen suggest all of the limitations recited in                             
                 claim 19, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 7, 9-17, and 19-                        
                 30.                                                                                                












                                                         9                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013