Appeal No. 2006-2710
Application No. 10/458,114
functionalized stationary phase described in Neumann, it would have been
obvious to use a silane bonding agent as the means for attaching a dendrimer
to a silica support.
Appellants argue that “Neumann binds polymers using organic
binding agents, namely, triazine, which is a trifunctional molecule wherein
all of the nitrogen atoms are functional and active. This fact in itself dictates
that the Neumann materials are different and do not make the materials of
the instant invention obvious.” (Br. 3.) Appellants also argue that “the
processes as taught in Snyder do not . . . teach binding dendritic materials to
solid substrates.” (Br. 4.)
We do not find these arguments persuasive. The Examiner is not
relying on either Neumann or Snyder to individually teach or suggest all of
the features of claim 1. Instead, the Examiner is arguing that the
combination of these two references renders claim 1 obvious. We conclude
that the Appellants have not overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case that
the combination of Neumann with Snyder renders claim 1 obvious.
Appellants argue that “Neumann necessarily needs to modify the solid
substrate so that the triazine can be used therein, by treating the substrate
with an amino compound. This leads to materials that are created by at least
a two step process just to create the amino functional polymer, and the
resulting materials are crosslinked, whereas the materials of the instant
invention are not.” (Br. 3.) In addition, Appellants argue that “Neumann
treats the solid substrate with his bonding agents, and then builds the
dendritic polymer onto that surface, while the process of the instant
invention merely bonds already formed bulky dendrimers to solid substrates
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013