Appeal No. 2003-1795
Application No. 09/821,702
Erickson, Richards and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art imputed by the appellants’ admission.
Here, the appellants do not dispute that Erickson, for
example, teaches “a diene monomer which yields substituted
aliphatic double bonds that are epoxidized.” See the Brief, page
4. Rather, the appellants repeat the arguments in the previous
Briefs in Appeal Nos. 1997-2238 and 1997-4371. Specifically, the
appellants argue (e.g., the Brief, pages 4 and 5) that:
The combined references do not teach, show, or
suggest the claimed invention. Applicants submit that
there is no motivation or suggestion in Erickson et
al., Masse et al., or Coolbaugh et al. that the
polymers having epoxidized aliphatic double bonds
result in free chain ends or sufficient free ends to
cause a problem that should be minimized. There is no
indication that the functional groups of Erickson et
al., Messe et al., or Coolbaugh et al. provide an
insufficient amount of crosslinking or curing or an
unfavorable network structure. Furthermore, Richards
et al.’s description of minimizing the free ends to
enhance polymer network structure also indicates that
polymers that are functionalized only at their chain
ends should be used predominantly (column 5, lines 16-
23). Thus, Richards et al. teaches away from using the
polymers described in Erickson et al., Masse et al., or
Coolbaugh et al. that have functional groups at
substituted aliphatic double bonds.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007