Appeal No. 95-1622
Application 07/890,593
Embodiment II, a copolymer containing only energy sensitive organometallic groups is employed with a
polynucleophilic compound. We further find that “solution 1” is also not representative of the identified
Wright Examples in other respects. With respect to the copolymer employed, a copolymer based on
these two components is found only in Examples 13, 14 and 22, while the organometallic monomer,
including the transition metal, is distinctly different in Wright Examples 10-12 ((2-
phenylethylacrylate)tricarbonyl-chromium, molybdenum or tungsten) as is the copolymer of Wright
Example 17 (styrenetricarbonylchromium and styrene). In Wright Example 12, the monomeric
mononucleophilic group is 2-aminoethylacrylate while in Wright Examples 13, 14 and 17 the
polynucleophilic compound is pyrazine. The solvent from which the coating is applied also differs in that
instead of methyl ethyl ketone, the solvent mixture tetrahydrofuran and methanol is used in Wright
Examples 10 and 11 while ethyl acetate is used as the solvent in Wright Examples 12-14, 17 and 22.
We also find that solvent ?-butyrolactone employed is used in “solution 2” as an inert diluent in order to
“match the mol% concentration of manganese species in the two solutions” (¶ 20).
We find that declarant McCormick states that solution 1 of declaration Example B is
“representative” (¶ 19) of the molar ratio of energy sensitive organometallic to reactive nucleophilic
groups found in Wright Examples 10-14, 17 and 22 (¶ 19), and further states that “[i]n this example, the
chemical reactions occurring in the polymer of solution 1 are essentially identical to those described in
Wright, where CpMn(CO)2/N species are formed, but these do not provide crosslinks in this
example” (¶ 22; emphasis ours; see also ¶ 20). With respect to the results in declaration Example B,
declarant McCormick reports that the irradiated “polymer from solution 1 immediately dissolved and
was removed from the panel while the polymer from solution 2 adhered to” the aluminum Q-panel (¶
20) and that “results were essentially identical” when the same solutions were applied to and irradiated
on silicated aluminum (¶ 21). We find that these qualitative results were obtained by irradiating the
treated panels with “two 15 W fluorescent blacklights (366 nm), which were 1 inch distant from” the
panels for a period of two minutes (¶ 20, which refers to ¶ 14; emphasis ours).
We fail to find any statement or evidence in the McCormick declaration indicating that
organometallic polymers of solution 1 did not chemically bond to either substrate at this single level of
irradiation. Indeed, we observe here that the qualitative results reported for the Wright solutions in
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007