Appeal No. 2006-2810 Page 9
Application No. 10/618,111
undeniably affirmative since Smith’s disclosure of LCT epoxy resins was available on
Appellant’s filing date.
It is our view that Appellant makes too much of Cook’s statement that the method
could be practiced on “any commercially available resin,” improperly interpreting it as a
limitation as to what polymers are reasonably suggested by the Cook disclosure. Brief,
page 5. In the next sentence that follows this statement, Cook goes on to say:
To those skilled in the art, the reaction between any amine (primary or
secondary) functionalized carboxylate-alumoxane or hydroxyl functionalized
carboxylate-alumoxane and a resin containing an oxirane [epoxy] ring would lead
to the formation of a carboxylate-alumoxane-epoxy polymer hybrid material.
Cook, column 12, lines 18-23.
As we understand it, Cook is stating that the reaction between a resin and
carboxylate-alumoxane would be expected by the skilled worked to lead to a hybrid
epoxy polymer material containing the alumoxane. Rather than expressing a
reservation about the applicability of the method, Cook’s message is matter-of-fact: put
an epoxy resin together with alumoxane to get the hybrid epoxy polymer. There are at
least four different epoxies utilized by Cook in the working examples. Cook, Examples
19, 22, 32, and 33. After considering the entirety of Cook’s disclosure, we see no
compelling reason to read “any commercially available resin” as a limitation to its
teachings.
Moreover, as discussed above, the motivation to have utilized the Smith LCT
epoxy polymer does not solely emanate from Cook’s statement about commercial
availability. Smith describes using fillers to improve the properties of its LCT resins.
Smith, column 6, lines 37-50. As argued by the examiner, this statement combined with
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007