Appeal 2006-2238
Application 10/168,709
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of Appellants' invention to use other forms of high
energy radiation, such as electron beam radiation, at the same dosage levels
as taught by Park for gamma radiation used in cross-linking of sorbent
materials (Answer 5). We agree.
Appellants present the same argument against Park as discussed above
(Br. 11). Therefore, we adopt our remarks from above. Appellants also
argue that the Park “methodology” neither discloses nor even suggests the
cross-linking of sorbent material that is produced by the method of the
invention (id.). This argument is not well-taken since it is clear that Park
teaches the use of gamma radiation to produce a “crosslinked structure”
(Abstract; 2, ll. 21-25).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 11 under § 103(a) over Park.
C. The Rejection over Berendee
Applying the same claim construction as discussed above with regard
to Park, the Examiner finds that Berendee teaches polymeric
chromatographic sorbents that have been treated with radiation, where the
sorbents are copolymers of styrene and divinyl benzene (Answer 4). The
Examiner “deems” that the styrene and divinyl benzene have pendent
unsaturated groups that are cross-linked by exposure to radiation (id.).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007