Appeal No. 1997-3376
Application No. 08/176,187
about 50 percent by weight) of the tri-block copolymer. In the
answer, the examiner explains that “if it is a tougher and more
flexible composition that is desired, then the ratio of the
thermoplastic tri-block copolymer [to the polypyrrole] can be
increased, but overall conductivity will have to be sacrificed ”
(answer, page 6). However, the examiner also states:
What is truly amazing about this particular dopant
polymer is that it can impart its desirable
properties to the composition when only a small
amount is used (see Table 1, p. 872) where only
4.8 wt% (relative to 95.2 wt% polypyrrole) will
still impart flexibility to the composition even
without solvent. (Answer, pages 5-6.)
In view of the examiner’s finding that just a small amount of
tri-block copolymer imparts desirable properties, we see no
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have increased
the amount of the dopant polymer from 4.8 percent by weight to
about 50 percent by weight at the expense of lowering
conductivity.
Further, appellants’ claims call for an ionomeric or
ionophoric block copolymer that “provides micellar or vesicular
domains for organization and polymerization of said monomer or
monomers” to control the morphology of the final composite.
According to appellants’ specification, this is accomplished by
complexing or sequestering redox active dipolar molecules or
ions, which act as the oxidative coupling or redox reagent for
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007