Appeal 2006-2614
Application 10/610,605
not dispute this particular finding in the Brief. Thus, accepting arguendo,
Appellants’ contention that the claim 1 macro photoinitiator is limited to a
photoinitiator which has a molecular weight between 5,000 and 130,000,
such argument is not persuasive. This is because the Examiner has found
that Everaerts discloses a photoinitiator (cross-linker), such as PDMS
benzophenone with a molecular weight of 8,000 or polyester
bisbenzophenone with a molecular weight of 5,000, either of which suggests
a photoinitiator within Appellants’ argued claim scope.1
On this record, we conclude that the Examiner has presented a prima
facie case of obviousness which has not been successfully rebutted by
Appellants.
In other words, Appellants have not identified any reversible error
underlying the Examiner’s rejection in the Brief. In particular, Appellants
have not established that representative claim 1 requires a macro
photoinitiator with a molecular weight higher than the photoinitiators (cross-
linking agents) taught or suggested by Everaerts taken with Zhao.
Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1-13 over Everaerts in view of Zhao.
1 The Examiner has correctly determined that Appellants do not define the
claim term “macro photoinitiator” in their Specification. Hence, like the
Examiner, we determine that representative claim 1 is not limited to the
argued molecular weight range for the macro photoinitiator. However, in as
much as Appellants’ argued narrow scope is unavailing to Appellants’
position, we need not further address a claim interpretation issue in deciding
this appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013