Appeal 2007-0618
Application 10/618,936
Appellants contend that Schilling has no discussion of storage
stability (Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 2), and the “other monomers” taught by
Schilling are very limited (Reply Br. 4).
Appellants further contend that there is no evidence of a motivation to
combine the references as proposed by the Examiner, as the problems
addressed by the references are very distinct from each other (Br. 6-7;
Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner contends that Schilling is “open to the use of another
monomer” and, given the benefits of using an ethylenically unsaturated
silane-containing monomer in a polyvinyl alcohol binder for paper
applications as taught by Maruyama, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a silane-containing monomer in the polyvinyl
alcohol of Schilling (Answer 4).
Therefore the issue on appeal is: would one of ordinary skill in this art
have found it obvious to incorporate the silane-containing monomer taught
by Maruyama into the polyvinyl alcohol cobinder composition disclosed by
Schilling?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments and evidence,
we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we
AFFIRM the sole rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer as well as those reasons set forth below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013