Appeal No. 95-0331
Application No. 07/626,904
to activate a hydrosilation reaction at temperatures below
about 50°C in the absence of actinic radiation” (Brief, page
21, emphasis in original). Contrary to the appellants’
belief, their above quoted point militates for rather than
against combining the teachings of Eckberg and Drahnak in the
manner proposed. That is, an artisan would have been yet
further motivated to use the catalyst of Drahnak rather than
the catalyst of Eckberg in order to avoid the plainly
undesirable premature reaction referred to by Eckberg.
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 lines 13 through 16 in column
9) and more specifically any radiation source emitting
radiation below about 4000 Angstroms (see lines 20 and 21 in
column 9), thereby suggesting the use of visible light.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007