Appeal No. 1998-2280
Application No. 08/514,677
other words, the examiner believes that Everaerts suggests a
compound in which “a” is different, i.e. “a” is both 1 and 0
for the same compound.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis.
Specifically, the examiner has not pointed to any evidence
that would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that
Everaerts’ crosslinking agent may contain the “W” moiety
while, at the same time, lack the “Y” moiety. In fact,
Everaerts appears to suggest exactly the opposite.
Specifically, Everaerts teaches the same value for both
subscripts “a” in the structures for the preferred
crosslinking agents. (Column 4, lines 36-67.)
The examiner argues that “[t]here is no statement [in
Everaerts] that [the] value of ‘a’ must be identical for each
segment ‘(Y) ’ and ‘(W) ’.” (Examiner’s answer, page 5.)a a
However, this argument does not make up for the lack of a
specific motivation, teaching or suggestion in the applied
prior art reference to arrive at the appellants’ claimed
invention. In this regard, we share the appellants’ view
(appeal brief, pages 6-7) that, if Everaerts is in fact
teaching that the values for the two “a” subscripts could be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007