Appeal No. 1999-2201
Application No. 08/704,063
Appellants argue that nowhere in Kurita is there any suggestion
or contemplation of the silylated acetylenic compounds of this
invention (Brief, page 4).
These arguments are not persuasive. Although Kurita does
disclose that component (D) contains at least one Si-C/CH bond
(see col. 3, ll. 3-19, and col. 4, l. 62-col. 5, l. 5), Kurita
also discloses a formula for inhibitor compounds within the scope
of component (D) as recited in claim 35 on appeal (see the
Answer, page 3, citing Kurita, col. 5, ll. 21-39, and col. 6, ll.
1-12). It is clear from the entire context of the disclosure and
the specific examples of component (D) disclosed by Kurita that
the silicon may be bonded to oxygen but the inhibitor contains an
acetylenic bond (see the formula at col. 3, ll. 5-8, and the
formulas at col. 6 through col. 8).
Appellants admit that “Keryk et al. discloses higher alkenyl
functional organopolysiloxanes” but does not disclose or suggest
the particular inhibitors claimed (Brief, page 6). This argument
is not well taken since, in this rejection, Keryk has been
applied for the disclosure of a similar release coating to that
of Kurita with the teaching that siloxane polymers (component
(A)) containing higher alkenyl radicals “react faster and more
completely than the vinyl containing polymers in the metal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007