Appeal No. 95-4203
Application 07/793,889
that Bauer broadly teaches the addition of a photoinitiator to his epoxy system. He
teaches that these substances are known and he then identifies various compounds as
examples. This list, in our view, is exemplary and not-limited to those compounds named.
Bauer’s epoxy resin materials, like that of Crivello, include epichlorohydrin-bisphenol A
products and are useful in photoimaging systems (See Bauer column 4, lines 11-21 and
examples 1-14 and Crivello column 5, lines 20-25 and example 7). Hence, in our view
there is ample motivation to employ any and all known photoinitators, inclusive of Crivello’s
cationic photoinitators, for epoxy resin materials from the teachings of the applied prior art
with the reasonable expectation of success. Appellants’ view that it is required that a
second reference suggest the modification of the first reference is without merit. The
suggestion to modify the art to produce the claimed invention need not be expressly stated
in one or all of the references used to show obviousness. “Rather the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.d. 413,
425, 208 USPO 871,881 (CCA 1981) Appellants’ argument that Bauer includes a free
radical initiator in his epoxy system is not persuasive. The instant claims by virtue of the
term “comprising” do not exclude the addition of a free radical initiator. In re Baxter, 656
F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981). As noted previously, the upper end of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007