Appeal No. 2001-1986
Application No. 08/719,968
diols with a compound selected from the group consisting of unsaturated polyolefin
diols, short chain diols, and mixtures of any of the foregoing, to form an oligomer,
and (b) further reacting the oligomer with a compound selected from the group
consisting of hydroxyacrylates, hydroxymethacrylates and mixtures of the foregoing;
2) at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer; and
3) at least one photopolymerization initiator;
to actinic radiation; and
b). developing away any unpolymerized photosensitive resin.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Reyes 3,764,324 Oct. 9, 1973
Scheve 4,198,238 Apr. 15, 1980
Chen et al. (Chen) 4,423,135 Dec. 27, 1983
Hoffmann 4,925,775 May 15, 1990
Nakatsukasa et al. (Nakatsukasa) 0 470 834 A2 Feb. 12, 1992
(Published European Patent Application)
Claims 13, 15, 16, 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Scheve, Nakatsukasa, Reyes, Hoffmann and Chen.
We have carefully evaluated the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all of
the arguments advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of their respective positions.
This evaluation leads us to conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well founded for the
reasons well articulated by appellants in their Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, “the examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007