Appeal No. 1996-3942 Page 5
Application No. 08/095,306
Of course, it is the examiner who has the burden of
establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found the requisite motivation and reasonable expectation of
success for the proposed modification from the applied prior
art teachings. 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). This the examiner
has not done.
In particular, we observe that Tumey discloses that not
all radiation curable resins are effective in providing good
adhesion of abrasives to a backing (column 1, line 51 to
column 2, line 10). While Tumey (column 3, lines 65-67) notes
that "[o]xygen and nitrogen atoms are generally present in
ether, ester, urethane, amide, and urea groups" in discussing
the ethylenically unsaturated compounds that may be used in
the disclosed polymerizable mixture, Tumey does not point to
or suggest appellants' specified 100% solids radiation curable
resin of one or more vinyl ether monomers and/or oligomers
vinyl ether. Palazzotto discloses vinyl ethers as one of
many cationically polymerizable materials that may be cured by
the compounds Palazzotto asserts as inventive (column 15, line
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007