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