Appeal No. 96-0607
Application No. 08/134,778
anionic surfactants (column 3, lines 40-41) and thus would
have suggested to the artisan the use of diphenyloxide
disulfonate in place of the alkyl-aryl sulfonate emulsifier5
in the emulsion polymerization of Daniel involving the AMPS
comonomer (column 3, lines 45-50). Accordingly, we conclude
that the subject matter of appealed claim 8 would have been
prima facie obvious based on the disclosure and teachings of
Daniel and Barnett.6
Appellants argue that Daniels alone does not suggest the
combination of a salt of AMPS and a diphenyl sulfonate
surfactant (brief, paragraph bridging pages 3-4). Appellants
further argue that Barnett does not disclose any core/shell
5It should be noted that a reference of record, not
applied by the examiner, suggests improved stability for latex
systems produced by emulsion polymerization when using the
DOWFAX surfactant (an alkyl diphenyloxide disulfonate
compound). See Dow, “Increasing mechanical stability and
reactor yields with DOWFAX anionic surfactants for emulsion
polymerization applications”, pp. 1-12, Dec. 1986.
6The examiner has relied upon Chmelir, Smith ‘224 and
‘359, and Moradi-Araghi to show the relative equivalence of
sodium and ammonium salts of AMPS in the art (answer, pages 4-
5; brief, pages 6-7). These references are discussed below
with respect to the claims on appeal limited to the ammonium
salt of AMPS. A discussion of the Roncari and Bowman
references is not necessary to reach our decision.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007