Appeal 2007-0615
Application 10/204,304
United Chemicals Inc)” (Specification 6). As shown by the vertically
striped bars in Figure 4, a difference of 40% in light intensity due to thermal
degradation exists between embodiments (b) and (c). This large difference
in light intensity due to thermal degradation between fluoridated silicone
polymers indicates substantial variation between fluoridated silicone
polymers such that Appellant’s evidence cannot be said to have established
that the unexpected results occur for all fluoridated silicone polymers. In
fact, the difference in light intensity due to thermal degradation between
embodiment (c) and embodiment (a) (i.e., the conventional silicone material)
is only 10%. This slight difference in light intensity due to thermal
degradation between conventional silicone and fluoridated silicone polymer
suggests that all fluoridated polymers do not behave in an unexpectedly
different manner than conventional silicone.
Also, without knowing the organometallic complexes and the
processing and testing conditions that are used to make and test the
exemplary optical sensors of Figures 2 and 4, it is impossible to
meaningfully compare the photobleaching or thermal degradation results of
the various sensors. For example, without having the experimental
conditions (e.g., composition, processing and testing conditions) we cannot
determine if the organometallic complex and processing and testing
conditions used in the conventional silicone example may have resulted in a
short lifetime for the organometallic complex, which indicates a substantial
amount of photobleaching, or if the organometallic compounds, and
processing and testing conditions in the fluoridated silicone polymer may
have resulted in a long lifetime for the organometallic complex so that less
photobleaching would be perceived. The paucity of information provided by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013