Appeal No. 2003-0346
Application No. 09/113,925
Therefore, the dispositive question is whether it would have
been obvious to replace the super absorbent polymer employed in
the corrosion sensor taught by Homma with the solid polymer
electrolyte membrane taught by Tomantschger or Kosek. On this
record, we answer this question in the negative.
At pages 7 and 8 of the Brief, the appellants correctly
state that Homma employs a super absorbent polymer in its
corrosion sensor for the purpose of using a liquid electrolyte in
measuring corrosion damage in the metallic structure. See, e.g.,
column 3, lines 26-35, column 5, lines 39-45 and column 6, line
60 to column 7, line 7. The appellants also correctly state at
page 8 of the Brief that:
Homma discloses [using] electrolyte resins [(solid
electrolyte polymers) to form the super absorbent
polymer] because of the higher liquid electrolyte
absorbency, i.e., 3000-1000(g/g), as compared with the
20-500 (g/g) absorbency of non-electrolyte resins.
Homma, col. 6, lines 6-15.
In other words, Homma teaches that electrolyte resins (solid
electrolyte polymers) are effective only as an absorbent
containing a liquid electrolyte in detecting or measuring
corrosion damage in a metallic structure. There is nothing in
Homma, which recognizes that electrolyte resins (solid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007