Appeal No. 2005-1693 Application No. 10/192,333 compositional CF2 fraction and a low degree of cross-linking density); see also Specification at 8, lines 16-21. For the reasons set forth above, the combined teachings of Warby and Gleason would have suggested the method of claim 2 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Their combined teachings also provide a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Warby and Gleason is affirmed. Claims 1 and 3 through 11 stand or fall with the patentability of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Warby and Gleason is also affirmed. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007