Appeal No. 94-4291
Application No. 07/627,009
paragraphs on page 22 of the brief, the appellants clearly
indicate that they will present no arguments concerning the
examiner's obviousness conclusion vis à vis her proposed
combination of Eckberg with Gruber or McDowell. Under these
circumstances, the appellants' point that Eckberg contains no
disclosure of the specific photoinitiators recited in
independent claims 1 and 21 is simply not germane to the
obviousness issue advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
Finally, the appellants argue that both Drahnak and
Eckberg are silent with respect to curing by visible
radiation. This argument is unpersuasive because none of the
independent claims on appeal requires curing by visible
radiation and because the appealed claims stand or fall
together as noted earlier in this decision. In any event, the
argument lacks persuasive merit. While Drahnak may prefer use
of ultraviolet radiation for curing, he discloses using
actinic radiation generally (see line 13 in column 9) and more
McDowell was previously advanced in the rejection of dependent
claims 4, 6, 23 and 25 and that these claims were canceled and
the subject matter thereof incorporated into independent
claims 1 and 21 via amendments filed after the final
rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007