Appeal No. 97-1897 4
Application No. 08/513,419
disclosure or suggestion that the crosslinked polyelectrolyte of Izuti replace the non-crosslinked polyelectrolyte of
EP ‘578.
Similarly, Takahashi discloses that acrylate polyelectrolyte comprising an acryloyl denatured polyalkylene oxide
may be included in cathodic composites. See column 5, lines 59-66, column 6, lines 62-66 and Example 23. However,
on the record before us, there is no disclosure or suggestion of replacing the non-crosslinked polyelectrolyte of EP
‘578
with acryloyl denatured polyalkylene oxide of Takahashi. Nor is there a suggestion or disclosure for replacing the
positive electrode of EP ‘578 with the positive electrode of Takahashi.
In summary, the examiner has chosen elements from each of the references of record and combined them to
form the invention of the claimed subject matter. However, the examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan
confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention would select the
elements from the cited prior art references for combination in the manner claimed. We determine that there is no
reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in the manner proposed by the examiner. Accordingly,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness and the examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007