Ex parte BASIL et al. - Page 10




             Appeal No. 95-0808                                                                                   
             Application 08/048,866                                                                               


             cerium oxide as the ultraviolet ray absorbent in Fujioka’s                                           
             overcoat layer composition.  In Fujioka’s Example 4, the                                             
             reaction mixture is left standing at room temperature for more                                       
             than 20 hours.  Appellants’ specification (page 6) indicates                                         
             that stirring a mixture of tetraethylorthosilicate and cerium                                        
             oxide for 4 hours at room temperature produces a reaction                                            
             product.  Thus, it reasonably appears that if a reaction                                             
             product is formed in appellants’ example, then including                                             
             cerium oxide in Fujioka’s mixture, which stands at the same                                          
             temperature for a much longer time period, also would produce                                        
             a reaction product.                                                                                  
                    Appellants argue that Fujioka does not disclose cerium                                        
             oxide and that Schroeder does not disclose or suggest the                                            
             reaction product of cerium oxide and tetraalkylsilicate or the                                       
             addition of the reaction product to the partial hydrozylate of                                       
             an alkoxide (brief, page 5).  This argument is not persuasive                                        
             because appellants are attacking the references individually                                         
             when the rejection is based on a combination of references.                                          
             See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA                                         
             1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, 159 USPQ 725, 728                                          


                                                      -10-10                                                      





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007