Appeal No. 95-0331
Application No. 07/626,904
obviousness-type double patenting doctrine over the claims of
Boardman in view of Drahnak, Eckberg and McDowell.
THE PROVISIONAL OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
The appellants’ arguments against the merits of this
rejection correspond to those previously discussed with
respect to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
over the claims of Boardman. These arguments are unpersuasive
for reasons analogous to those set forth previously. We also
will sustain, therefore, the examiner’s provisional rejection
of all the appealed claims under the obviousness-type double
patenting doctrine over the claims of the ‘009 application in
view of Drahnak, Eckberg and McDowell.
THE § 103 REJECTIONS
Like the examiner, we conclude that it would have been
obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to use the
hydrosilation catalyst of Drahnak in combination with a
photoinitiator in accordance with Eckberg’s teaching of using
photoinitiators and catalysts together in a hydrosilation
process or composition and to employ as a specific
photoinitiator those of the type taught by McDowell or Gruber.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007