Appeal 2007-0326
Application 09/746,888
presented specific, substantive arguments for the separate patentability of
any individual claim, we consider these claims separately below. See 37
C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)(8) (2003), in effect at the time that Appellants’ Brief
was filed.
The Examiner has relied on the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Krzysik US 6,149,934 Nov. 21, 2000
Klofta US 6,238,682 B1 May 29, 2001
Kropf US 6,316,030 B1 Nov. 13, 2001
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-7, 10-13, 16-20, 40, 41, 43, 45-47, 49, 50, and 52-57 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Krzysik in view of
Klofta (Answer 3).
Claims 14, 15, 21-39, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Krzysik in view of Klofta and Kropf (Answer 5).1
Appellants contend that neither Krzysik nor Klofta discloses the
claimed composition applied to a liner, and the Examiner has “picked and
choosed” the components from the two references using hindsight (Br. 8).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not adequately stated why
one of ordinary skill would have selected particular compounds from Klofta
and combined them with the teachings of Krzysik to arrive at the claimed
1 We note that the Examiner inadvertently includes claims 35 and 36 in this
rejection, both in the Final Office Action dated Nov. 1, 2002 (page 4) and
the Answer (page 5). Both the Examiner and Appellants agree that claims
35 and 36 have been withdrawn from further consideration as directed to a
non-elected invention (Br. 1; Final Office Action dated Nov. 1, 2002, page
1; Answer 2, ¶ (3)). For purposes of this Appeal, we do not consider claims
35 and 36 as included in this rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013