Appeal No. 2002-1799 Page 6
Application No. 09/353,592
coated” at column 10, lines 47-51 of the patent, we cannot agree
with appellants that Leung would not have reasonably led one of
ordinary skill in the art to “dispose” the rate modifier on the
outer surface of the inner container based on the overall
teachings of Leung.
In light of the above, appellants’ arguments to the effect
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to dispose the rate modifier (accelerator or initiator)
on the outer surface of the inner container (400, FIG. 3) of
Leung as one alternative is not found persuasive. Rather, we
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to employ an inner container outside surface
location for the rate modifier as an alternative to the outer
container inside surface location mentioned by Leung (column 10,
lines 43-53). In that regard, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have readily recognized that there are only a limited
number of possible places, including the outside surface of the
inside container, for putting the rate modifier in the applicator
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007