Appeal No. 95-1622
Application 07/890,593
declaration Example A show that the extent of chemical bonding between the organometallic copolymer
increases as the period of exposure increases. In this respect, we have compare the irradiation source
used in declaration Example B with the teachings of Wright. The solution of the organometallic polymer
and the mononucleophilic 4-t-butylpyridine most closely resembles Wright Embodiment II which
requires a polynucleophilic compound, such as pyrazine. Wright teaches that the exposure of such
Embodiment II compositions can be from “less than one minute . . . to five minutes or more” (col. 11,
lines 31-33) and exemplifies “irradiation from a 400 W mercury lamp . . . at a distance of 30 cm.” for a
period of “ten minutes” for (e.g., Wright Example 13, col. 15, lines 39-42; emphasis ours). In
comparison, where the nucleophilic groups are present on the organometallic polymer in Wright
Embodiment I and on a separate polymer in Wright Embodiment III, the exemplified irradiation periods
with the same radiation source are 1 minute and 5 minutes, respectively (see, e.g., Wright Examples 1
and 22; see also col. 11, lines 36-44). Thus, the Wright Examples represented in declaration Example
B utilize a higher intensity irradiation source and, with respect to Wright Examples 13, 14, 17 and 22,
for a period greater than in this declaration Example. We find no evidence or statement indicating that
the organometallic polymers of Wright solution 1 would not chemically bond to either substrate at any
level of exposure taught in Wright, which levels of irradiation are indeed greater at least in intensity if not
also in period than used in declaration Example B.
Declarant McCormick states the evidence with respect to solution 1 shows that the
“nucleophilic groups of Wright interfere with or preclude bonding of photogenerated ‘CpMn(CO)2’
species with basic sites on the substrate” (¶22; emphasis ours). We agree with declarant McCormick
to the extent that the reported qualitative results with solution 1 indicate that the presence of the non-
monomeric nucleophilic compound interferes with the bonding of the organometallic coploymer to the
basic reactive sites on the substrate at the stated molar ratios of energy sensitive organometallic groups
to reactive nucleophilic groups under the irradiation conditions stated in the declaration. However, we
find no statement or evidence with respect to declaration Example B which supports the conclusion that
the presence of the non-monomeric nucleophilic groups precludes the bonding of the organometallic
copolymer with the substrate even at the stated molar ratios of energy sensitive organometallic groups to
reactive nucleophilic groups and the irradiation conditions employed in Wright.
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007