Appeal 2007-0650
Application 10/808,264
Moreover, what declarant Keller means by “high molecular weight” is
not clear. The evidence does not convince us that those of ordinary
skill in this art would not have known how to synthesize the x=7-10
aromatic diols of the Keller reference.
Appellants have not satisfied their burden of showing that the
Keller reference is not enabling with respect to the subject matter of
claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Appellants note that this claim limits
the –(–O–Ar–)n– repeating unit of claim 1 to those where the Ar
groups are m- or p-phenylene and contend that these compounds are
not enabled by the Keller reference (Br. 4). However, Appellants only
argue that, in Hammann, the longest chain having only phenylene
groups has x=3. Again, the fact there is no express disclosure of
longer repeating units does not suffice to overcome the presumption
that Keller is an enabled reference for all the compounds disclosed
therein.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Keller.
B. Obviousness over Matzner
The Examiner rejects claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 56, and 58 as
obvious over two related Matzner references.2 These references are
directed to block copolymers containing poly (aryl ether) blocks and
poly(aryl ether ketone) blocks (see, e.g., Matzner ‘758, col. 4, ll. 8-
16).
2 The US 5,084,530 reference is a divisional of US 4,968,758, and the
two references have substantially the same disclosures.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013