Appeal No. 94-3414
Application 08/054,998
Thus if p=3 and q=2, then the difference between the oxyalkylenes in the claimed polysiloxane and that
of the prior art is as follows:
))C H O(C H O) (CH CHO) ))C H O(C H O)
3 6 2 4 a 2 b 3 6 2 4 x
|
CH3
Polyoxyalkylene Recited in Claims on Appeal Prior Art
The examiner argues that the q values of Ishiwata can be a combination of 2 and 3. While the examiner
acknowledges that Ishiwata does not disclose a polyoxyalkylene organopolysiloxane which contains a
combination of 2 and 3, the examiner concludes “[a]bsent a clear showing of unexpected results for this
combination of Q [sic, q] representing 2 and 3, the invention would be obvious” (answer: pp. 3-4;
underscoring in the original). We do not share the examiner’s view.
Ishiwata does not teach or suggest a combination of 2 and 3 for q. On this record, the examiner
has not presented any scientific reasoning based on the teaching of Ishiwata that would have led a person
having ordinary skill in the art to add a “b” unit as required by appellant’s claim. For the foregoing reasons,
the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007