Appeal 2007-1945
Application 10/669,215
The Examiner has finally rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 4, 7 through 10, 12, 15 through 20, 31
through 37, 39, 40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a) as unpatentable over
the disclosure of Sublett;
2) Claims 1 through 4, 7 through 10, 12, 15 through 20, 31
through 37, 39, 40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Sublett and either Hamilton or
Smith;
3) Claims 1 through 10, 12 through 20, 31 through 40, and 42
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Sublett, Small and optionally Hamilton or Smith; and
4) Claims 1 through 13, 15 through 26, 28 through 37, and 39
through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Allen and Hilbert.
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
ISSUES
1. Does Sublett describe the claimed thermoplastic composition
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
2. Would Sublett alone, or in combination with Small, Hamilton
and/or Smith, have rendered the claimed thermoplastic composition obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013