Appeal No. 2006-0856
Application No. 10/148,993
The examiner states that the definitions set forth in Eaborn are consistent with
the definitions of siloxanes and silanes as disclosed by Egitto (Answer, page 7). We
note that appellants argue that a “siloxane” requires “Si-O-Si” bonding (Reply Brief,
page 1).
We first note that appellants agree that Egitto discloses the use of polysiloxanes
in general as exemplary of the invention (col. 1, ll. 15-20; see the Brief, page 4). We
determine that this disclosure alone would have been sufficient to suggest to one of
ordinary skill in this art the specific polysiloxanes as claimed in claim 18 on appeal. See
In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500, 226 USPQ 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(obviousness
rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work”
in detergent formulation, even though “inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from
among thousands of compounds”). Appellants have not explained why this exemplary
teaching of suitable polymers by Egitto would not have suggested the claimed
polysiloxane polymers (e.g., the simplest polymer, polydimethylsiloxane).
Egitto discloses that polysilanes have -Si-Si- repeating units, while polysiloxanes
have -Si-O- repeating units (col. 1, ll. 15-20; col. 2, ll. 1-5). Accordingly, this definition
by Egitto comports with appellants’ definition that polysiloxanes have “Si-O-Si” bonding
since the “repeating unit” as defined by Egitto would have at least a “-Si-O-Si-O-“
bonding. Contrary to appellants’ argument, Eaborn is not directed to any definitions of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007