Appeal 2007-0615
Application 10/204,304
Appellant does not separately argue the claims. Accordingly, we
select independent claim 1 as a representative claim on which to render our
opinion.
OPINION
Appellant’s arguments are primarily directed to secondary
considerations of nonobviousness (i.e., unexpected results), rather than
whether the Examiner established a prima facie case. Specifically,
Appellant argues that, “[s]ince the effects on the organometallic complex
were not considered [by the Examiner] and since the effects on the
organometallic complex were unexpected and significant, the claimed
invention would not have been obvious” (Br. 4-5). Appellant contends that
the enhanced dye (i.e., organometallic complex) stabilization achieved using
a fluoridated silicone polymer as the substrate is an unexpected result that
overcomes the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion based on Lakowicz in
view of Macur or Jolson (Br. 5-6). Appellant further argues that neither
Macur nor Jolson recognizes the advantage of using fluoridated silicone
polymers to stabilize the dye against photobleaching and thermal
degradation such that there would have been no motivation for substituting
Jolson’s fluorinated silicone polymer or Macur’s fluorosilicone polymer for
the silicone polymer in Lakowicz’s oxygen sensor (Br. 6).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are unpersuaded
by them for the reasons below.
Lakowicz discloses an oxygen sensor wherein a transition-metal
complex (i.e., organometallic complex) is embedded in a silicone substrate
(Lakowicz 536). Lakowicz further discloses that oxygen sensitivity of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013