Appeal No. 1999-2201
Application No. 08/704,063
6).5 From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to use the inhibitors taught by JP ‘786 and Lee
as the inhibitor of Keryk in order to insure non-reactivity under
heating conditions and to impart a prolonged pot life and
improved releasability (id.). We agree.
Appellants again admit that Keryk teaches higher alkenyl
substituted polyorganosiloxanes but argue that this reference
does not disclose or suggest the particular inhibitors as claimed
(Brief, page 7). This argument is not persuasive since Keryk
does suggest the particular class of inhibitors used (see col. 6,
ll. 15-48), while JP ‘786 and Lee teach the advantages of the
particular inhibitors as claimed. The test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants argue that JP ‘786 and Lee do not disclose or
suggest higher alkenyl functional siloxanes as claimed (Brief,
page 8). This argument is not well taken for reasons given
above, namely that the references as a whole must be considered
in any obviousness analysis. See Keller, supra.
5As previously discussed, appellants admit that silylated
acetylenic inhibitors are known in this art, citing Lee and JP
‘786 (specification, page 2, l. 26-page 5, l. 28).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007