Appeal 2006-2614
Application 10/610,605
by representative claim 1 patentably distinguish claim 1 over Everaerts taken
with Zhao (Id.). Rather, Appellants base their arguments on the claimed
macro photoinitiator component (Id.). Appellants contend that Everaerts,
alone or in combination with Zhao, does not teach the claimed macro
photoinitiator; hence, the applied references do not suggest a curable
composition capable of forming a product with stress relaxation properties,
as claimed (Id.). Appellants maintain that the Examiner’s reliance on the
cross-linking agents of Evaraerts is misplaced in that those agents are of a
significantly lower molecular weight than the macro photoinitiators required
by representative claim 1 (Id.). More particularly, Appellants assert that
Everaerts exemplifies cross-linking agents of a molecular weight of about
300 grams per mole whereas Appellants’ claimed macro photoinitiator is of
a number average molecular weight of between about 5,000 to about
300,000 (Br. 3-4).
Dispositive Issue Raised
Have Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection over Everaerts and Zhao in their Brief? More particularly, does
Everaerts fail to teach or suggest using a macro photoinitiator of a size
falling within the size required by representative claim 1?
We answer those questions in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s
rejection, on this record.
Additional Facts/Analysis and Conclusions
The Examiner has found that Everaerts discloses employing a
polymeric benzophenone (PDMS benzophenone) with a molecular weight of
8,000 or a polyester bisbenzophenone with a molecular weight of 5,000 as a
photoinitiator (Final Rejection 4; Everaerts, col. 8, ll. 40-69). Appellants do
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013