Appeal 2007-1021
Application 10/834,652
Lee is active at the ambient temperature range recited in the independent
claims.
Our foregoing discussion fully resolves the previously mentioned
issues before us in favor of the Examiner. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to
point out that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is further
supported by an additional consideration. Specifically, the Examiner
indicates the record contains no evidence that a different product is obtained
when catalyzing the claim 1 reaction at ambient temperatures rather than
somewhat higher temperatures. Thus, the Examiner has fairly raised the
reasonable consideration that the claim 1 composite structure is unpatentable
because it does not distinguish from the prior art even if Lee's amine-based
catalyst is assumed to become active at temperatures higher than the
activating ambient temperatures of the claim 1 amine-based catalyst. See
Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565,
1583, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Appellants' contrary
view (Reply Br. 4) is not supported by evidence in the record of this appeal.
For the above-stated reasons, we hereby sustain the § 103 rejections of
claims 1-3, 5-23, and 25-45 over Lee and Argyropoulos and of claims 4, 24,
and 37 over Lee, Argyropoulos and Hashimoto.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013