Appeal No. 1999-1066
Application No. 08/756,440
page 28, line 12 through page 29, line 14 or page 17, line 19
through page 18, line 2 but the Examiner did not found [sic,
find] any support for this phrase [i.e., the aforequoted claimed
subject matter]” (supplemental examiner’s answer, mailed
September 10, 2002, page 10). This statement reflects that the
examiner may believe that literal support is required for the
claimed subject matter in question. As previously indicated,
however, the test for written description compliance does not
require literal support. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d at 1375, 217
USPQ at 1096.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
section 112, first paragraph, rejection of all appealed claims.
The section 103 rejections
With respect to a rejection based on Hayase in view of
Katou, it is the examiner’s conclusion that:
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to add
the specified aminosilicon compound (taught as formula
(1) of the invention) as taught by Katou et al. in the
photosensitive composite taught by Hayase et al.
because Katou et al. teaches in columns 10 and 11, an
aminosilane represented by Formula (IX) NH2-R8 - SiR9 Z
can be introduced to the terminal polymer because this
would improve adhesion to a substrate [supplemental
examiner’s answer, mailed September 10, 2002, page 7].
We cannot agree.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007