Appeal No. 1996-1942 11
Application No. 07/977,834
have been obvious to use extraneous heating to speed up the polymerization,” id., there
is no evidence of record to support the examiner’s statement. In our view however,
there is no motivation to have combined the Ozono reference with Sawai. The materials
used in Sawai are already polymerized prior to microencapsulation. Hence the person
having ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the process of Sawai by the
utilization of either UV or an additional peroxide. Although, the examiner is suggesting
that the monomer system of Ozono replace the polymer system of Sawai, to form an
additional wall, we conclude however, that no suggestion or motivation is present to
combine the references as stated to provide for two walls particularly as Ozono is directed
to an improvement over the prior art which is directed to the walls disclosed by Sawai.
See Ozono, column 1 lines 10-18. We conclude that the examiner’s suggestion to
combine the references would defeat the purpose of Ozono’s invention.
As for Wolinski, we find the reference is directed to a cold setting adhesive wherein
only the activator for the system is encapsulated. See column 1, line 67 to column 2,
line 6. Indeed, the examiner relies upon Wolinski for the sole purpose of
providing the free radical initiator of claim 9, i.e., benzoyl peroxide. See
Answer, page 9. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 dependent on claim 1
remains deficient for the reasons stated supra with respect to Sawai alone.
As to the rejection of claim 15 on the grounds of anticipation and claim
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007