Appeal No. 2006-0856
Application No. 10/148,993
8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Egitto in view of
Verzaro (Answer, page 6).
Based on the totality of the record, we affirm both rejections on appeal essentially
for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Egitto
The examiner presents the findings of fact from the disclosure of Egitto on pages
4-5 of the Answer.
Appellants do not dispute or contest any of the examiner’s factual findings with
the exception of the finding that Egitto shows particular siloxane copolymers (Brief,
page 4; Reply Brief, pages 1-2). Therefore, we limit our discussion to this argument
below. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that claim 18 has been limited by the inclusion of specific
siloxane copolymers while Egitto does not show these particular siloxane copolymers
(Brief, page 4). Appellants further argue that Egitto discusses polysiloxanes generally
but instead gives formulas for examples of silanes, not siloxanes (Brief, page 4; Reply
Brief, page 1). Appellants present Eaborn as evidence as to what compounds are
considered as siloxanes and silanes (Brief, page 4) and dispute the examiner’s finding
that methyl siloxanes are disclosed by Egitto (Reply Brief, pages 1-2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007