Interference No. 103,224
column 3-4); (2) Bell et al (3922436: column 1, lines 31-68; column 15, lines
50-56; column 16, lines 62-66); (3) Kitaj (3873352: Example 1); (4) Kitaj
(3801361: column 2, lines 49-54); (5) Russell (4371566: column 3, lines 34-37).
Interestingly, none of these five references are specifically referred to or
discussed in the subject motion. This constitutes a glaring omission and an
example of the inadequacy of characterizing the prior art of record in terms of
nothing more than broad generalities and conclusory statements.
Another evident shortcoming of Hashimoto's original motion was a failure
to address teachings in Japan 50182, a prior art reference of which Hashimoto
evidently was well aware at the time it filed its preliminary motions.
According to the English translations filed by both Skutnik and Hashimoto,
Japan 50182 characterizes the silane coupling agent as an "adhesion promotor"
or "adhesive improving agents." Motion 1 fails to address the implications of
this disclosed function with regard to the obviousness of separately applying
the silane coupling agent. To wit, Hashimoto failed in its motion to address
the question of whether the prior art disclosure of a silane as an adhesion
promoter would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the
silane component could be used as a primer
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007