Ex parte MAHAR - Page 8




          Appeal No. 94-2973                                                          
          Application No. 07/956,529                                                  


          include polyvinyl alcohols” is of no moment (Brief, p. 6;                   
          emphasis in original).  In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ           
          795, 802 (CCPA 1981) (“the term ‘comprises’ permits the inclusion           
          of other steps, elements, or materials”).                                   
               Appellant further argues that (Brief, p. 8):                           
               Shioji does not teach or suggest a method of preparing                 
               a stable slurry of magnesium hydroxide using a                         
               combination of 0.2 to about 20 percent by weight based                 
               on the weight of magnesium hydroxide of one or more of                 
               the polymeric anionic dispersants recited in                           
               Applicant’s Claim 22 together with 0.2 to about 20                     
               percent by weight based on the weight of magnesium                     
               hydroxide of one or more water-soluble alkali metal                    
               salts.                                                                 
               Shioji discloses that the combination of both (a) the                  
          carboxyl group-containing water-soluble polymer and (b) the                 
          water-soluble condensed phosphate are present in an amount of               
          from 0.1 to 2 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of              
          the inorganic pigment (col. 7, lines 18-26).  The amounts                   
          disclosed in Shioji fall within the range recited in claim 22.              
          See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936               
          (Fed. Cir. 1990)(where the difference between the claimed                   
          invention and the prior art is a range the applicant must show              
          that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that            
          the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the               
          prior art range).                                                           

                                          8                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007