Appeal No. 2003-0891
Application 09/011,614
“stain test” that involves bond strength between the dried composition and the silicone paper.
Thus, on this record, appellants’ unsupported arguments and conclusions in this respect are
entitled to little, if any, weight. See Payne, supra; Lindner, supra.
With respect to appealed claims 14 through 19 and 22 through 28 that were not
considered above, we are not convinced by appellants’ general arguments that the reference
neither teaches nor suggests the embodiments of these claims in view of the teachings of
Imagawa which we have discussed above. Furthermore, we are also not convinced by appellants’
arguments with respect to bonding strength and staining made as to several of the dependent
claims for the same reasons that we were not convinced by these same arguments above.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Imagawa with appellants’ countervailing
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 11, 14 through 20 and 22 through 29 would have been
obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to appealed claims 12 and 21, the examiner has not identified any teaching
with respect to the styrene containing copolymers disclosed in the reference which would teach
or suggest a copolymer of styrene that contains at least 30% by weight of styrene or methyl
styrene as required by these claims. Thus, we reverse the ground of rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Imagawa.
Turning now to the ground of rejection of appealed claims 30 through 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Motier, these claims require that the copolymer of styrene must contain more than
80% by weight of styrene residues. Appellants contend that when the entirety of the styrene
copolymer that actually is used in the composition as disclosed by the reference in col. 2, lines
38-47, is considered, the closest possible disclosure to these appealed claims results in a styrene
copolymer that ‘has a weight percent of styrene which is less than 75%” (brief, page 11;
emphasis supplied). The examiner does not dispute appellants’ calculations, contending that
such a styrene copolymer is nonetheless encompassed by the claim language because Motier uses
the approximating term “about” (answer, page 9). We find no basis in the record, including the
examiner’s arguments or in Motier, which would have led one of ordinary skill in this art to
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007