Appeal 2007-2585
Application 09/917,192
ll. 47-49). However, as emphasized by Appellant, and apparently conceded
by the Examiner, Whitehead provides no teaching or suggestion that the
rigid polypropylene comprises any fiber, let alone the presently claimed long
glass fibers. The Examiner states that "these plastics have long fibers/staple
glass fibers" (Answer 3-4). Evidently, the Examiner is relying upon the
theory of inherency, i.e., all hard, rigid polypropylene comprises long glass
fiber. However, the Examiner has presented no objective evidence to
support his position, and, significantly, Appellant has cited evidence to
support the argument that "[h]arder forms of plastic may be manufactured
through many different means, including use of various fillers, catalysts, and
non-glass additives" (Principal Br. 7-8). Unfortunately, the Examiner has
not responded to this argument of Appellant, but replies with the irrelevant
statement that "it appears that the appellant is relying on a method of
forming … and not the apparatus per se" (Answer 5, first para.). The
Examiner also errors in stating that "appellant's broad claims would read on
any door component formed of plastic having a hard/dense portion and a
flexible portion" (id.). To the contrary, Appellant's broadest claims require
that the rigid portion comprise long glass fiber and that the elastic portion
comprises no long glass fiber.
We must also point out that the Examiner has failed to respond to a
number of arguments presented by Appellant with respect to various
separately argued claims. Manifestly, this constitutes reversible error.
Concerning the § 103 rejection over the additional citation of
Eckhardt, this additional reference does not remedy the basic deficiency of
Whitehead discussed above.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013