Appeal 2007-0159
Application 10/850,019
separately argued as to any ground of rejection. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Appellants do, however, reference claims 26-31
within the text of their argument (see Br. 4). Accordingly, while we may
properly decide this appeal on the basis of independent claim 1 alone with
respect to each ground of rejection, we have given consideration to
Appellants’ assertion that the temperature ranges recited in claims 26-31
patentably distinguish over the applied prior art. (See, infra, 6-7).
The Examiner found that Chiefari discloses the invention as claimed.
The Examiner found that Campbell ‘026, Villalobos, Campbell ‘144,
Campbell ‘590, Brand, and Paquet each disclose the invention as claimed in
claim 1 with the exception that the references teach continuous processes. It
is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a batch or
semi-batch process in place of a continuous processes because it is
conventional to do so in bulk homogeneous polymerization systems.
(Answer 5-8).
Appellants contend that the prior art references fail to disclose or
suggest that acrylate monomers can spontaneously polymerize at elevated
temperatures without the presence of free radical initiator or styrene
monomers, as in Appellants’ invention. The Examiner responds by pointing
out that the claims do not require acrylate monomers which themselves act
as thermal initiators. The Examiner further points out that the claim
language does not preclude the presence of a free radical initiator/source, nor
are the claims limited to high temperature, spontaneous acrylate
polymerization without a chemical or a photochemical initiator/source.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013