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,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007