Appeal No. 2003-1681
Application No. 09/320,780
art would have found motivation to look to teachings of similar
compositions in the prior art, even if they were solvent-based
systems.” Id., page 5.2
Appellants do not refute these findings by the examiner.
Moreover, appellants do not raise any additional arguments in
response to the examiner’s proposed motivation for combining the
references beyond their contention that the secondary references
are limited to organic solvent systems while the primary
reference is limited to a water-based system.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1 which
appellants have failed to rebut. We also find that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claims 2-23 which depend from claim 1 as well as independent
claim 27 for the reasons set forth in the final rejection.
Appellants do not present any additional arguments with respect
to these claims.3
The rejections of claims 1-23 and 27 are affirmed.
2 We also note that Kaijou discloses a water repellant silica sol which
can be dispersed homogeneously in non-polar organic solvents which include
some of the same solvents utilized by Otsuka. Compare, Kaijou, column 3,
lines 42-45 with Otsuka, column 3, lines 65-68.
3 See appeal brief, page 3, paragraph (7) (“the claims stand or fall
together”).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007