Appeal No. 2007-0196 12
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,009
While this statement in isolation is attorney argument, it is pretty plausible on its
face. Moreover, we need not read it in isolation. Lord cites two patents to Parker5
illustrating this chemistry.
The examiner dismisses the Parker patents as improper in an anticipation
rejection. Had the examiner addressed them in the context of the obviousness
rejection, he might have said they are not analogous art. Neither objection is apt in
this case, however. The Parker patents are not used as prior art, but rather as an
illustration of the chemistry underlying Congoleum's claim limitation: hydrolyzed
silanes is broad enough to include siloxane oligomers. While it would have been
neater for Lord to have used analogous art to help explain the claim term, there is
no reason to believe the basic chemistry changes depending on who is using it.
Once Congoleum's claimed coupling-agent limitations are properly
construed and the Chen reference is considered for all that it would have fairly
taught a person having ordinary skill in the art, there is more than enough basis for
a prima facie case of obviousness for this limitation.
5 A.A. Parker, T.T. Stanzione, G.H. Armstrong, F.E. Phelps, and S.M. Opalka,
"Densified ceramic green sheet and stack having conductors therein", U.S. Patent
5,252,655 (issued 12 October 1993); A.A. Parker, E.M. Anderson, and T.T.
Stanzione, "Surface treated ceramic powders", U.S. Patent 5,348,760 (issued
20 September 1994).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013