Appeal No. 96-0937
Application 08/203,723
fact that the plasticizer according to the present invention may be a citrate and that the
cited patents use “sodium citrate.”
In pursuing this appeal, appellants explain at page 3 of the Appeal Brief (Paper
No. 16, January 23, 1995) that sodium citrate does not meet the requirements of the
claims on appeal in regard to the nonvolatile plasticizer. The examiner apparently
agreed that sodium citrate is not a nonvolatile plasticizer according to the present
invention since the examiner pointed to other disclosure in the Bolich references in
restating the rejections in the Examiner’s Answer. Specifically the examiner pointed to
column 24, lines 35-53 of Bolich N646 and column 18 of Bolich N658 at page 3 of the
Examiner’s Answer as disclosing the nonvolatile plasticizer required by the claims on
appeal. In addition, the examiner noted at page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer that the
present specification teaches that silicone copolyols can be used as the plasticizer and
that Bolich N658 “discloses various silicone compounds at col. 10, line 35 to cols. 11-
12, which can be construed as (iii).”
At pages 2-3 of the first Reply Brief filed June 1, 1995 (Paper No. 18), appellants
went to great lengths to point out that none of the portions of the Bolich patents relied
upon by the examiner as disclosing silicone copolyols actually describe those
compounds. However, appellants pointed out in the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of
the first Reply Brief that, while silicone copolyols are not disclosed in the cited sections
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007