Appeal No. 1996-2690
Application 07/967,787
electromagnetic radiation to cause the crosslinking of the host polymer and thus form a
crosslinked polymer which exhibits second order nonlinear optical properties as well as
the resulting produce as claimed. The references, and particularly Ulman, discloses the
use of the required components, the use of an electric field to obtain poling and the use of
electromagnetic radiation to crosslink the nonlinear polymer binder to form the resulting
crosslinked product having the prescribed properties. Where, as here, a prima facie case
of obviousness has been established, the burden of going forward shifts to the appellants.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984), In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147, (CCPA 1976).
Appellants initial argue that (Principal Brief, page 7):
[t]here is no disclosure that the binder precursors can
themselves contain a nonlinear optical component as part of a
polymer backbone or side chain. . . . There is also no
disclosure in Ulman et al. that a host polymer which contains a
nonlinear optical component, can be crosslinked by a distinct
crosslinking agent, while the nonlinear optical component of
the host polymer is poled.
This argument is not persuasive since Ulman does disclose the linear polymers,
dipolar pendant groups, and a linkage of each dipolar pendant group with the linear
polymer backbone (Column 24, lines 34-41). Further, we note the discussion at column
26, lines 38-51, where Ulman distinguishes the "linear polymers employed as binder
precursors are to be distinguished from the linear polymers previously employed as
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007