Appeal No. 95-1948
Application 08/090,854
and the examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
This rejection will be sustained. Since we agree with the
findings of fact, conclusions of law and responses to arguments
set forth in the Answer, we will adopt these findings,
conclusions and responses as our own. We add the following
comments for emphasis and completeness.
The appellants argue that Erickson contains ?no example of a
combination of a photoinitiator which absorbs in the same
wavelength region as the aromatic moieties with a photosensitizer
which absorbs in a different wavelength region? (Brief, page 4).
This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. In the first
place, obviousness under § 103 simply does not require
exemplification in a reference. In the second place, the
independent claims on appeal do not require ?a combination of a
photoinitiator which absorbs in the same wavelength region as the
aromatic moieties with a photosensitizer which absorbs in a
different wavelength region?.
The appellants also argue that ?there is no recognition of
the problem which the present invention solves? (Brief, page 4).
As pointed out above, however, the independent claims are not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007