Appeal No. 2002-0701
Application 09/201,269
The examiner argues that Margotte “discloses the equivalence
or interchangeability of t-butyl peroxide initiator, as disclosed
by either Houser et al. or Puschak et al., with t-butyl peroxy
isopropyl carbonate, as presently claimed (col. 3, lines 38-56)”
(answer, page 8). Since Puschak discloses t-butyl hydroperoxide
(col. 5, line 23) rather than Margotte’s di-tert-butyl
hydroperoxide (col. 3, lines 45-46), it appears that the examiner
is arguing that Margotte teaches the equivalence of t-butyl
peroxy isopropyl carbonate and t-butyl peroxides generally. This
broad equivalence has not been established by the examiner.
Moreover, even if such an equivalence existed for Margotte’s
polyacrylates which are used alone for non-high-duty industrial
applications or are reacted with polyisocyanates to make
polyurethane coatings for general industrial and automobile
coatings (col. 3, line 66 - col. 4, line 2; col. 4, lines 27-30),
the examiner has not established that such an equivalence would
exist with respect to the preparation of the printing inks of
Houser and Puschak.
The examiner points out that neither Houser nor Puschak
explicitly discloses the amount of residual monomer resulting
from the polymerization, and argues that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Margotte’s
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007