Appeal No. 1997-3376
Application No. 08/176,187
weight of a sulfonated styrene/hydrogenated butadiene tri-block
copolymer dopant and THF-PhNO 2 solvent. The examiner considers
the tri-block copolymer of sample 6 to be within the scope of
appellants’ “ionophoric and ionomeric copolymers ” as specified in
appealed claim 1. As pointed out by the examiner (answer, page
5), Bates discloses that the film can be “heat processed to a
homogeneous structure without loss of conductivity or of
mechanical properties” (third full paragraph, right column, page
871).
In contrast to the subject matter of appealed claim 1, Bates
differs as follows: (1) the polypyrrole and the tri-block
copolymer do not constitute the discrete and continuous phases of
the conductive film, respectively; (2) the tri-block copolymer is
not present in an amount from about 50 percent by weight to about
99 percent by weight; and (3) the tri-block copolymer does not
appear to provide micellar or vesicular domains for organization
and polymerization of the monomer or monomers. In addition, it
is not clear from this record whether the bulk or surface
electrical conductivity of Bates’s film is isotropic.
With respect to the first difference, the examiner dismisses
the claimed limitations regarding the polypyrrole discrete phase
(and the ionomeric or ionophoric block copolymer continuous
phase) as mere process limitations that do not affect the final
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007