Appeal No. 1998-2134
Application No. 08/585,217
binder. See Answer, pages 6 and 9 and Brief and Reply Brief
in their entirety.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the
disclosures of Hsieh and Wright. See Answer, pages 6-7 and 9-
10. Appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding that
both Hsieh and Wright describe the claimed block copolymer
binder. Compare Answer, pages 6-7 and 9-10 with Brief and
Reply Brief in their entirety. Rather, appellant argues that
Hsieh and Wright do not provide a sufficient suggestion to
employ their block copolymer as the block copolymer binder of
DuPont or Garmong. See Brief, pages 12-14 and 20-21 and Reply
Brief, page 2-3 and 5-7.
In so arguing, appellant fails to take into consideration
the collective teachings of the applied prior art references.
When the applied prior art references, not just Hsieh and
Wright, are considered as a whole, we agree with the examiner
that there is a sufficient suggestion to arrive at the claimed
subject matter. Specifically, we agree with the examiner’s
finding that both DuPont and Garmong set the criteria for
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007