Appeal No. 1999-2507
Application No. 08/967,367
The appellants argue that Brekner does not disclose the use
of core/shell polymer particles. (Appeal brief, page 6.) But
this is exactly why the examiner relied on Laughner. The
question is what the combined teachings of the applied references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ
375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).
The appellants point out that Yamamoto describes a modified
acrylate or methacrylate copolymer with cycloolefin side groups
and that, therefore, Yamamoto's matrix is different from that
recited in the appealed claims. (Appeal brief, pages 6-7.)
However, the appellants overlook Yamamoto's teaching that the
soft polymer may be a polymer derived from cycloolefins, as we
discussed above.
The appellants contend that "Laughner is directed to a
different class of polymers then [sic] the primary references."
(Appeal brief, page 7.) As pointed out by the examiner
(examiner's answer, page 8), the appellants' argument is not
fully explained and is not supported by any facts. Regardless,
the examiner correctly determined that Brekner and Yamamoto
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007