Appeal No. 2003-0878
Application No. 09/575,903
present invention include … block copolymers containing a block
moiety of polysioloxane.” In view of this disclosure, we must
agree with the examiner’s position regarding Matyjaszewski,
especially because appellants’ arguments do not dispute this
disclosure found in Matyjaszewski. The examiner’s findings
support the requisite that the prior art can be modified or
combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as one
of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success. In re Merck Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Amgen, Inc.
v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1209, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1023
(Fed. Cir. 1991). Absent evidence/arguments to the contrary, as
in the present case, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. As set
forth above, claims 3 and 4 fall together with claim 1.
II. The Rejection of claim 5
On pages 14 and 15 of the Brief, appellants’ position
essentially is that because Tsubakihara does not disclose making
polysiloxane polymers through the use of a transitional metal
catalyst, this reference does not cure the asserted deficiencies
of Kumar in view of Matyjaszewski.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007