Appeal No. 94-4291
Application No. 07/627,009
have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine Eckberg with Drahnak.
We cannot agree. While it is correct that Eckberg
teaches his compositions may react prematurely at room
temperature and that such premature reaction would not occur
in using Drahnak's catalyst, these facts militate for, rather
than against as urged by the appellants, replacing Eckberg's
catalyst with the catalyst of Drahnak. This is because the
proposed catalyst replacement would eliminate the undesirable
potential for the premature reaction disclosed by Eckberg.
The appellants further argue that "Eckberg also fails to
disclose or suggest the specific classes of photoinitiators
recited in Claims 1 and 21" (brief, page 21). However, the 4
examiner has relied upon the teachings of Gruber or McDowell
to support his conclusion that it would have been obvious to
use photoinitiators of the type under consideration in the
process and composition of Eckberg. In the last two 5
4It is appropriate to explicitly emphasize that this
argument is not applicable to independent claim 45 since this
claim is not limited to such photoinitiators.
5By way of clarification, we point out that the
examiner's proposed combination of Eckberg and Gruber or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007