Ex parte INAISHI - Page 6

              46, and be part of the photoinitiator system.  See, Abstract and claim 1.  However,                      
              there is no teaching or suggestion that the N,N-dialkylanilines of Adair can function by                 
              themselves as initiators in the system of Adair.   Based upon the above analysis, it is                  
              reasonable to conclude that substituted N,N-dialkylanilines within the scope of the                      
              instant claimed subject matter perform a variety of functions in photopolymerization                     
              systems.  Based upon the evidence of record, the person having ordinary skill in the                     
              art would have been unable to predict what specific functions, if any, N,N-                              
              dialkylanilines would perform in a photopolymerization system containing a metal arene                   
              initiator and a squarylium dye.                                                                          
              Accordingly, we conclude that there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive                              
              supporting the combination of the  N,N-dialkylaniline compounds of Adair in the                          
              composition of Ali.                                                                                      
              Similarly, the metal arene initiators of Imahashi and Okuhara function as initiators in                  
              photo polymerizable systems completely unlike those of Ali and Adair.  We determine                      
              that there is no teaching or suggestion in either of Imahashi or Okuhara to utilize only                 
              the metal arenes taught therein and insert them into a system containing N,N-                            
              dialkylaniline sensitizers.                                                                              
              Based upon the above analysis, we have determined that the examiner’s legal                              
              conclusion of obviousness is not supported by the facts.  “Where the legal                               
              conclusion [of obviousness] is not supported by the facts it cannot stand.”  In re                       
              Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).  Because we                                  
              reverse on this basis, we need not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the showing                     
              of unexpected results.  See Brief, pages 14-17.  See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686,                         


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007