Appeal No. 1996-2336
Application 08/270,345
desired polymerization control even though the cyclicsiloxane-
containing component is preheated. Consequently, heating the
components as recited in appellant’s claims 2 and 3 would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
over Graiver. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d
1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Longi, 759
F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In response to the rejection of claims 2 and 3, appellant
relies upon the same argument made with respect to the
rejection of claim 1 from which these claims depend, i.e.,
that Graiver requires pre-emulsifying the cyclicsiloxane
(brief, page 11). This argument is not persuasive as
explained above. Appellant also argues that Graiver teaches
away from the method in appellant’s claim 2 because the
catalyst concentration in that claim is relatively high when
the catalyst is added to the cyclicsiloxanes. See id. We are
not convinced by this argument because appellant’s claim 2
does not require that the catalyst concentration is high. The
claim is open to diluting the catalyst before it is added to
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007