Appeal No. 1996-0670
Application No. 08/043,388
page 5). Appellant submits that Sackoff discloses using any
of five different classes of polysiloxanes, including the two
classes (i) and (ii) recited in the claims on appeal, but does
not teach an admixture of two polysiloxane materials (Id.).
Appellant further argues that polysiloxane (i) as recited in
the claims on appeal requires a much lower molecular weight
than taught by Sackoff for the corresponding polysiloxane
component (Brief, pages 5, 7 and 8). Appellant also cites In
re Baird for the holding that a generic disclosure does not5
render obvious a species, particularly when the reference
(Sackoff) teaches away from the molecular weight of the
polysiloxane (i) component (Brief, pages 8-9).
The examiner states that Sackoff discloses both
polysiloxane (i) and (ii) for inclusion with PSA and “that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art
to employ a combination/mixture of such water soluble and
polyalkyl polysiloxanes in conjunction with the PSA” in view
of the “principle” of In re Kerkhoven (Answer, page 4). The 6
516 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
6The examiner incorrectly cites Corometrics v. Berkeley
for the “principle” on page 4 of the Answer (also repeated on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007