Appeal No. 96-2833
Application 08/202,772
under conditions where the polymer becomes crosslinked so as
to form a three dimensional polymer network” (col. 3, lines
42-46). The examiner, however, has not explained why this
disclosure indicates that if Fox’s treatment material were
prepared according to the process used by appellants, the
polymer would not encapsulate the cleaning aid. According to
appellants’ process described in their specification (page 5,
line 17 - page 6, line 2), poly(vinyl alcohol) is dissolved in
a water/organic mixed solvent and, prior to crystallizing the
poly(vinyl alcohol), one or more surfactants and/or detergents
are added to the solution. Appellants state that they believe
that the surfactants and/or detergents are encapsulated by a
poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel (specification, page 5, lines 23-
24). The examiner argues (answer, page 9) that the gentle
mixing in appellants’ examples 1 and 2 would not cause
encapsulation of the cleaning aid, but the examiner provides
no evidence or technical reasoning in support of this
argument.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007