Appeal No. 1996-3320 Page 6
Application No. 08/342,955
At the outset, we note that the examiner has the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness based on
the disclosure of the applied prior art. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
According to the examiner, Lucey discloses "...a radiation
curable composition comprising A) 1-70 wt% of a monomer of vinyl
ester acrylate monomers... and/or B) 0-70 wt% of a prepolymer
which can be selected to be conventional epoxy diacrylates...
and C) a photoinitiator..." (answer, page 3). The examiner
acknowledges that Lucey does not teach a composition containing
an acrylate of the herein claimed formula Ia or Ib (answer, page
4).
The examiner notes that the epoxides of the type disclosed
by Bagga (a secondary reference relied upon by the examiner) are
used by appellants in making appellants' compound of formula Ia
or Ib which compound is employed in appellants' claimed
composition (answer, page 4). However, the examiner acknowledges
that Bagga "does not disclose the making of acrylated epoxides
from the disclosed" epoxides of Bagga (answer, page 4).
Nonetheless, in the examiner's view, "... it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the generic
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007