Appeal No. 1997-3563 Page 5
Application No. 08/321,460
claims. This is so since Dammann (Figure 1 and column 4,
lines 53-56) suggests that doing so would result in the
immediate curing of such an admixture by way of the amine
catalyst triggering the formation of the unhindered or active
catalyst species II and IV, which immediate curing is not
desired according to Chung (column 1, lines 46-48 and column
2, lines 23-25). Nor has the examiner established that the
additionally applied Chang patent cures the above-noted
deficiencies.
"It is well established that before a conclusion of
obviousness may be made based on a combination of references,
there must have been a reason, suggestion or motivation to
lead an inventor to combine those references." Pro-Mold and
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37
USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the examiner has
not established any convincing reason, suggestion or
motivation for combining the references as proposed (see the
Brief, pages 10-13). The examiner has essentially only made
general statements that Dammann suggests extended pot life and
rapid cure in the presence of an amine activator (Paper No.
16, pages 6-8) and that the benefits of such would have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007