Appeal 2007-2152
Application 10/797,982
(the question is whether the prior art describes the claimed subject matter, or
something falling within the claim, with sufficient specificity to anticipate
the claim). In particular, none of Greener’s examples includes a
compatibilizer (Br. 4). Moreover, because the compatibilizer is absent from
Greener’s examples, the Examiner erred in concluding that Greener’s
material would inherently meet the claim limitations for surface roughness
(Answer 5).
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Greener is reversed.
REVERSED
clj
Paul A. Leipold
Patent Legal Staff
Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650-2201
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3
Last modified: September 9, 2013