Appeal No. 96-1787
Application No. 08/372,482
§ 103 for obviousness in view of Hill (’633 or ’744) taken in
combination with Kanner. With regard to the two alternative2
Hill references, we find it necessary to refer only to the
’633 patent inasmuch as both Hill patents have the same
disclosure, as noted by the examiner.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record in light
of the respective positions espoused by appellants and the
examiner, we agree with appellants that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the rejection at issue.
The examiner recognizes that the particular type of
siloxane surfactant recited in the instant claims differs from
that of Hill in that it contains “M” and “Q” siloxane units
rather than the “M” and “D” units disclosed by Hill. 3
2While Kanner was not specifically mentioned in the final
rejection, we view that omission as an apparent oversight for
the reasons stated in the examiner’s Answer. We find that the
oversight does not prejudice appellants’ case inasmuch as
appellants have seen fit to address the Kanner reference in
their Brief.
3Appellants cite a standard reference work (Noll,
Chemistry and Technology of Silicones, 1968) for a definition
of the symbols “M,” “D” and “Q.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007