Appeal No. 95-3989
Application No. 07/956,107
the art to formulate the claimed composition. In our view,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the
claimed composition only by serendipity, rather than from the
requisite suggestion by the prior art. Accordingly, we find
no description of the claimed invention in support of the
examiner's rejection under § 102, and we further find that the
claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103.
Finally, we concur with appellant that the appealed
claims would not have been obvious over the combined teachings
of Sato, Yamamoto and Keough. The examiner states at page 4
of the Answer that Keough discloses formulations employing a
mixture of ionic and nonionic surfactants. However, like
appellant, we find no such disclosure in the reference.
Furthermore, Keough does not disclose or suggest perfluoro
antistatic agents and, therefore, Keough would have provided
no teaching or suggestion of substituting a monomer in the
polymeric formulation of Sato which comprises a mixture of
ionic and nonionic perfluoro antistatic agents. In addition,
the antistatic agents of Keough are reactive with the electron
radiation curable prepolymer, whereas appellant submits that
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007