Appeal No. 95-3353 Page 8
Application No. 07/855,799
regard, we note that Aotani clearly teaches that the azido
group containing polymer is selected from those which would be
"...sensitized by the sensitizers of this invention" (column
7, lines 33-37 and column 2, lines 3-34).
We further observe that Aotani suggests numerous examples
of other polymers that could be used with the sensitizer in
Aotani's inventive composition and teaches the use of non-
azide containing polymers as well as azido group containing
polymers such as aromatic azide compounds wherein an azido
group is directly bonded to an aromatic ring (column 7, line
33 to column 8, line 5). Thus, we find ourselves in agreement
with appellant (brief, page 10) that the applied prior art
would not have suggested the examiner's proposed combination.
In our view, the reference combination as proposed by the
examiner would appear to destroy the inventive concept of
Aotani which requires that the polymer be selected from among
those disclosed by Aotani based on the compatibility thereof
with the sensitizer compound to be used therewith. See Ex
parte Hartmann 186 USPQ 366, 367 (Bd. App. 1974).
Accordingly, we cannot sustain this rejection based on the
present record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007