Appeal No. 95-1622
Application 07/890,593
monomer;11 and (3) the coating applied to the substrate in declaration Example A with respect to
“[s]olutions 1-3” thus comprises two non-monomeric components and not a copolymer or terpolymer
as taught in Wright for Embodiment I and as used in the Wright Examples represented here. We further
observe that in Wright Examples 1, 2 and 9, a solution of the copolymer or terpolymer in tetahydrofuran
was coated onto the substrate and dried prior to exposure to radiation energy while in declaration
Example A, the solution consisting of the monomeric organometallic complex and the non-monomeric
mononucleophilic compound is coated onto the substrate and immediately exposed. The “solutions 4-
6” stated to “serve as models” of the claimed invention (¶ 13) also employ the non-monomeric
compound “MeCpMn(CO)3” and thus are not representative of appealed claim 2 in this respect
because this claim, as we have construed it above, requires that the ogranometallic compound must be
either monomeric or polymeric. We also find that solvent ?-butyrolactone employed in “solutions 4-6”
is stated to be an “inert diluent” (¶ 13).
We find that declarant McCormick states that solutions 1-3 of declaration Example A “serve as
models” of the molar ratios of energy sensitive organometallic groups to reactive nucleophilic groups
found in the identified Wright Examples 1, 2 and 9 (¶ 12). With respect to the results in this Example,
declarant McCormick states that the “marks” resulting from the exposure of the coatings obtained with
Wright solutions 1-3 at the smallest exposure period were “seen to dissolve and wash off the [substrate]
during solvent rinse,” which qualitative result “was consistent with formation of MeCpMn(CO)2/(4-t-
butylpyridine) which is analogous to the chemistry described by Wright to account for his observed
crosslinking” (¶ 15; emphasis ours). We fail to find any statement or evidence indicating that none of
the non-monomeric ogranometallic complexes of solutions 1-3 had chemically bonded to the substrate
at this level of exposure. However, declarant McCormick states that as the exposure periods
increased, “faint marks from solutions 1-3 could be discerned” which were not as pronounced as “the
marks from corresponding solutions 4-6” (¶ 16). We find these reported qualitative results to be
evidence of chemical bonding of the organometallic compound to the basic reactive site containing
substrate in solutions stated to be “analogous to the chemistry described by Wright” and, indeed, Wright
11 Compare the monomeric vinyl(methyl)cyclopentandienyl manganese tricarbonyl used in declaration
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007