Appeal 2007-0502
Application 10/318,567
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Lee US 3,729,005 Apr. 24, 1973
Gander US 3,951,893 Apr. 20, 1976
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 20-22, 25, and 48-53 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Gander.
2. Claims 4-6, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gander.
3. Claims 19, and 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gander in view of Lee.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the
Appellants and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the
Brief and the Reply Brief, and to the Answer, respectively, for a complete
exposition thereof.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION OVER GANDER
Appellants argue that “Gander fails to disclose or suggest an
absorbent composite including an absorbent crosslinkable binder
composition, comprising an alkoxysilane functionality which, upon exposure
to water, forms a silanol function group which condenses to form a
crosslinked polymer” (Br. 4). Appellants contend that Gander uses an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013