Appeal No. 1998-2280
Application No. 08/514,677
different for a given compound, the reference would define
each subscript “a” separately or would indicate that the value
of “a” is “independently 0 or 1.”
The examiner also contends that “[i]f ‘a’ could be 0 or
1, but had to be the same, it is clear that the presence or
absence
of either ‘W’ or ‘Y’ is not critical in the formula disclosed
in [Everaerts].” (Examiner’s answer, pages 5-6.) The
examiner thus concludes that ”one skilled in the art would
have expected that compounds with ‘a’ being 1 for one of ‘W’
or ‘Y’ and zero for the other would behave similarly as
crosslinking agents to compounds with subscripts ‘a’ for both
‘W’ and ‘Y’ equal to 1 or to zero.” (Id. at page 6.) The
weakness in this argument, however, is that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Everaerts of a crosslinking agent
which contains a “W” moiety but, at the same time, lacks a “Y”
moiety. In the absence of such a teaching or suggestion, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a compound
that (i) does not contain “W” and “Y” or (ii) a compound that
contains both “W” and “Y.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007