Appeal No. 96-1770
Application No. 08/296,307
organosilicon-organotin admixture would not have suggested the
“reduced decomposition” temperature limitation required for
the organosilicon-organotin admixture in the method of the
claims on appeal. Therefore the examiner has failed to
establish that Porter provides any disclosure or teaching of
employing a reduced decomposition temperature for the
organosilicon-organotin admixture as required by claim 1 on
appeal.
In addition to the limitation regarding a reduced
decomposition temperature found in claim 1 on appeal, the
method of claim 8 on appeal requires a step of “defining said
given percentage decomposition . . . .” The examiner has not
presented any evidence or pointed to any disclosure or
teaching in Porter that would have shown or suggested this
limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 under §
103 as unpatentable over Porter cannot be sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007