Appeal No. 2002-2131
Application 09/009,597
limited in the appealed claims (answer, pages 3-4). The examiner combines Abele with Winkler,
Bronstert and Masse, and based on these disclosures, reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably selected the anionic polymerization method from among three methods
known in the art to prepare radial block copolymers, and thus would have arrived at a narrow
molecular weight distribution falling within the claimed range (answer, pages 4-5). We note that
the examiner did not find that any of Winkler, Bronstert and Masse prepare
(polystyrene/polybutadiene)4Si that would fall within the teaching of Abele or within the
appealed claims. We find that, as pointed out by appellants, Winkler and Bronstert hydrogenate
the copolymers for a number of purposes, including the preparation of adhesives in Bronstert,
and Masse prepares an epoxidized block copolymer for preparation of adhesives.
The examiner further combines Abele with Kirk-Othmer, and based on these disclosures,
reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have kept the content of the
(polystyrene/polybutadiene)4Si polymer of Abele as low as possible (answer, page 5). We note
that the examiner did not identify any teaching pertaining to (polystyrene/polybutadiene)4Si, in
Kirk-Othmer.
The examiner combines Abele with Akiyama for the position that one of ordinary skill in
this art would use a paraffinic oil “to provide soft and rubber-like composition as well as improve
the mechanical properties of the cured portion of the photosensitive elastomer composition”
(answer, page 6). We find that, as pointed out by appellants, Akiyama prefers paraffinic oils
from among a number of softening agents for molding compositions containing rubber-like
hydrogenated block copolymers prepared from, inter alia, styrene and butadiene, with a homo- or
copolymeric polyphenylene ether resin and a polyolefin or polystyrene resin.
The examiner further finds since the combined teachings of all of the applied references
“teaches the present photopolymerizable composition,” they also teach “the present claimed
shore A hardness,” which “is a physical property” (answer, page 6). Indeed, no reference,
including Abele, recognizes shore A hardness to be a characteristic exhibited by a non-
photopolymerized and the photopolymerized composition.
It is well settled that the examiner must point to some teaching, suggestion or motivation
in the prior art to support the combination of references. See Lee, supra; Smith Industries
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007