Appeal No. 2005-0359
Application No. 09/333,917
As to separately argued appealed claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 18,
the appellants argue that Hari does not disclose the recited
monomers. (Appeal brief at 13-14.) To the contrary, Hari
discloses butyl methacrylate as well as 1,4-butanediol
dimethacrylate. (Column 4, lines 7-9 and 18-21.)
As to appealed claim 13, the appellants allege that Hari
does not teach components (A) and (B) to be free of methyl or
ethyl (meth)acrylate. (Appeal brief at 14.) To the contrary,
Hari discloses that the amount of methyl (meth)acrylate may be
zero and that the prepolymer (B) may be one that is not based on
methyl or ethyl (meth)acrylate. (Column 3, line 29; column 4,
lines 22-36.)
As to appealed claim 17, the appellants argue that Hari
does not disclose or suggest “at least 90 wt% of at least one”
the recited monomers. (Appeal brief at 14.) The appellants are
wrong. First, component (A) does not recite any amount for the
methacrylate species recited as a Markush group. Second, and
more importantly, Hari teaches that the amount of C4 or higher
(meth)acrylate may be as high as 100% by weight. (Column 3,
lines 30-31.)
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007