Appeal No. 95-1622
Application 07/890,593
2. An energy sensitive article comprising:
(a) a substrate having basic reactive sites; and
(b) an energy sensitive organometallic compound having at least one organometallic
group coated on at least a portion of at least one surface of the substrate, wherein the organometallic
compound is essentially free of reactive nucleophilic groups and is chemically bonded through the
organometallic group of the organometallic compound to the basic reactive sites on the substrate.
The appealed claims3 as represented by claim 24 are drawn to an article wherein an energy
sensitive organometallic compound, which is essentially free of reactive nucleophilic groups and has
been coated on at least a portion of at least one surface of a substrate having basic reactive sites, is
chemically bonded through at least one organometallic group to the reactive sites on that substrate. The
article of appealed claim 2 can be prepared by coating an energy sensitive organometallic compound
that is essentially free of reactive nucleophilic groups on at least a portion of a substrate having basic
reactive sites and exposing the coating to energy to effect the chemical bonding of the organometallic
compound to the basic reactive sites of the substrate as set forth in appealed claim 24. According to
appellants, the claimed articles are useful, inter alia, as protective coatings, adhesive primers, printing
plates, durable release agents and abrasive articles (specification, pages 20 and 50).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Wright5 4,503,140 Mar. 5, 1985
Palazzotto et al. (Palazzotto) 4,985,340 Jan. 15, 1991
original claim 3. Since we have found no amendment canceling original claim 3, this claim is properly
before us on appeal.
3 Error appears in appealed claims 6 and 21 as copied in the appendix to appellants’ principal brief.
Appealed claim 6 recites “lasses” rather than “glasses” in the second line thereof. Appealed claim 21 as
it stands of record reads in part “coated and and [sic] chemically bonded” and the second “and” does
not appear in the copy of this claim in the appendix.
4 Appellants state in their principal brief (page 8) that the “rejected claims do not stand or fall together.
Each claim stands or falls alone.” The examiner submits that appellants have not separately argued each
of the appealed claims (answer, page 2) and appellants did not traverse the examiner’s position in their
reply brief. Accordingly, we have decided this appeal based on appealed claim 2, with respect to all of
the grounds of rejection involving this claim, appealed claims 15 and 16, with respect to the ground of
rejection specifically involving these two claims, and appealed claim 24, with respect to the ground of
rejection of appealed claims 24 and 25. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) and (6)(1993).
5 Wright and the application on appeal appear to be commonly assigned (see supra note 1).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007