Ex Parte Smith - Page 14


             Appeal No. 2006-2810                                                          Page 14               
             Application No. 10/618,111                                                                          

                   Along these same lines, Smith mentions experiments using fillers such as                      
             alumina and silica, but does not present any data to substantiate his conclusion that               
             these fillers were deleterious to the LCT epoxy resin structure.  Thus, these results are           
             also not persuasive.                                                                                
                   In ¶7 of the Smith Declaration, it was stated:                                                
                   By mixing the alumoxanes of Cook ‘183 with the LCT of Smith ‘984 one would                    
                   expect to get, and would in all likelihood end up with, a ruined LCT resin that has           
                   disrupted crystalline domains and phase separation with the added alumoxanes.                 
                   This statement, as pointed out by the examiner, is confusing.  Answer, pages 15-              
             16. If “in all likelihood” Cook in view of Smith would “end up with, ruined LCT resin,” then        
             what is Appellant doing differently to avoid this result, and how is this reflected in the          
             claims?  Although this issue was raised in the Answer, we do not find it adequately                 
             addressed in the Brief or Reply brief.                                                              
                   Appellant also contends that the examiner acquiesced to their position:                       
                   In any event, perplexingly enough, the Examiner actually agrees with the                      
                   assertion that “mixing of particles likely would have disrupted the crystalline               
                   structure of the LCT-resin,” but he goes one to state that “this appears to be moot           
                   in light of the combined teachings.” (Page 9 of advisory action, middle                       
                   paragraph.) So the Examiner is stating that obtaining a ruined resin is sufficient            
                   prior art, due to the structural similarities that he demonstrated, to overcome the           
                   crystalline resin of applicant’s invention.                                                   
             Brief, page 6.                                                                                      
                   Cook’s method does not involve only mixing of “particles” with epoxy resins, but              
             also requires the chemical bonding of the alumoxane material with the epoxy polymer.                
             Whether unbound particles would disrupt the crystalline structure was considered                    
             “moot” by the examiner, because Cook’s method used a different approach.  Thus, we                  
                                                                                                                 
             4 Appellant did not point to this disclosure in the Brief.                                          





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007