Appeal No. 2002-0223 5
Application No. 09/410,162
INTERPENETRATE.”1
Inasmuch as the silane treatment penetrated throughout the elastomer and mixed
with the elastomer, we conclude that the elastomeric material was “impregnated” as
required by the claimed subject matter. We further conclude that, inasmuch as the
silane utilized by Pinchuk in Example 7 is the preferred silane of claim 55, the organic
material would be inherently “preserved” as required by the claimed subject matter.
Stated otherwise, “preserving” the material would be an inherent property inasmuch as
the method and material utilized are the same.
Based upon the above findings and analysis, we conclude that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject
matter, this being the sole issue before us for consideration with respect to the rejection
over Pinchuk.
As for the second rejection, Leidheiser teaches the protection of an inorganic
material, i.e., steel, with polymerized methyl triacetoxy silane. See Answer, page 4.
There is no suggestion or teaching however, in Leidheiser that the polymerized
triacetoxy silane impregnates the steel as required by the claimed subject matter. In
support of her position, the examiner cites In re Marra 329 F.2d 970, 972, 141 USPQ
221, 223 (CCPA 1964) stating that, “the art does not recognize any distinction between
coating and impregnating.” Id.
The pertinent portion of the decision reads as follows;
1 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 1136 (G. & C. Merriam Co., 1971). Copy
attached.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007