Appeal No. 96-1781
Application 08/389,521
specification (brief, page 2), but we find no language in this
portion of the specification which indicates that an organic
solvent may not be used in appellants’ claimed process.
Appellants argue that the epoxy resins of Anderson,
Howell, Jr. and Bozzi are very different from appellants’
epoxidized polydiene polymers, and that the examiner makes an
unsupported conclusion that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the epoxidized
polydiene polymers of Erickson and Udipi for the epoxy resins
of Anderson, Howell, Jr. and Bozzi (brief, page 5).
Appellants argue that it
is not a foregone conclusion that a process which works with
the epoxy resins of Anderson, Howell, Jr. and Bozzi will work
with the epoxidized polydiene polymers of Erickson and Udipi
(see id.).
As argued by the examiner (answer, page 5), the teachings
by Erickson (col. 17, lines 8-9) and Udipi (col. 1, lines 30-
33) that their epoxidized polydiene block polymers provide
strong, flexible films would have motivated one of ordinary
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007