Appeal No. 1996-0214
Application 07/755,603
polyalkylene, rather than being based on both substituent
groups and polyalkene.
To decide the issue of anticipation we need not make an
ultimate finding as to which ratio Meinhardt discloses
because, first, if Meinhardt’s ratio is a functionality ratio,
it is different in quantity than that recited in appellants’
claims and, therefore, Meinhardt does not anticipate
appellants’ claimed invention. Second, even if Meinhardt
discloses a succination ratio, it would not be possible to
calculate the corresponding functionality ratio absent a
disclosure of the fraction of the polymer which is substituted
with succinic groups. Thus, it would not be possible to
determine whether Meinhardt anticipates appellants’ claimed
invention.
The examiner argues that Meinhardt’s functionality ranges
are 1.10 to 2.62 and, therefore, overlap with appellants’
range of about 1.05 to 1.25 (answer, page 8). The range of
1.10 to 2.62 is not that of Meinhardt. It is a range of
succination ratios calculated by appellants from appellants’
range of functionality ratios, assuming that 50% to 95% of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007