Appeal No. 1996-2690
Application 07/967,787
To the extent that appellants argue that Ulman does not specifically disclose
crosslinking a polymer having the nonlinear optical moiety bond thereto, we note that
Ulman suggests the use of such polymers in this type of process and Reck specifically
teaches the use of such polymers which are crosslinked to form second order nonlinear
optical polymers as claimed.
Thus, having weighed appellants' arguments and evidence against the evidence in
favor of unpatentability, we agree with the examiner's determination that Ulman taken in
view of Reck is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability as to the
claimed subject matter which is not overcome by persuasive arguments or evidence. We,
therefore, affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 2-13:
Claim 2, and those claims directly or indirectly dependent on claim 2, differ from
claims 1 and 37 in providing that the crosslinking agent exhibits second order nonlinear
optical properties upon exposure to an electric field. In separately addressing claim 2, the
examiner states (Answer, page 8):
With respect to claims 2-4, Ulman et al disclose molecular
dipoles with at least one, preferably two, crosslinking group in
column 37, line 53 to column 41, line 5. If these molecular
dipoles were covalently bonded to a polymer to provide the
polymeric alternative taught by Ulman et al, polymers having
polymerizable groups would be expected to result.
We find no suggestion in Ulman and the examiner points to no evidence which
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007