Appeal No. 2003-0955
Application No. 09/406,645
In the Request, appellants argue that a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been established. Appellants state that, as
disclosed on page 6 and page 13 of the Brief, Sato teaches a
stripping composition containing TMAH and glycol ether.
Appellants argue that a cured silicone resin to be removed by
the stripping composition is not disclosed in Sato, and the
disclosed remover solution requires a component A, which is an
alcoholic solvent, and a component B, which is an organic
solvent. Appellants state that there is one disclosure of an
alcoholic solvent being dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, but
out of a total of 57 working examples, none contain an ether
component. Appellants also argue that their composition does
not contain an organic solvent B.
As discussed on page 6 of our decision, we stated that the
examiner indicated that Sato sets forth a composition comprising
tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide (TMAH), dipropylene glycol
monomethyl ether, but no surfactant. Whether or not the
examples exemplify the disclosed dipropylene glycol monomethyl
ether is not the issue because a reference is not limited to the
specific working examples. In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 424,
148 USPQ 711, 716 (CCPA 1966). A reference is available for all
that it fairly discloses and suggests. In re Widmer, 353 F.2d
752, 757, 147 USPQ 518, 523 (CCPA 1965). Hence, Sato teaches a
dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether in the composition.
With regard to the assertion that appellants’ composition
does not require an organic solvent B as disclosed in Sato, we
refer to our position made at the top of page 6 of the decision
wherein we stated that column 3 of Sato discloses other classes
of solvents can be used other than hazardous solvents.
Finally, as explained by the examiner on page 5 of the
answer, Sato teaches a method of removing cured resins from a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007