Appeal No. 1997-3392
Application 08/297,946
The examiner argues that in claim 1, step (a), it is not
clear what is being converted because, in the examiner’s view,
in claim 5, which depends from claim 1, there is no conversion
of monomer or comonomers to a polymer product, and it is not
clear what is converted in claim 1 such that claim 5 is within
the scope of claim 1 (answer, pages 10, 11, 25 and 28-29).
The examiner applies the same reasoning to the rejection of
claim 23 (answer, page 11). Claim 5 recites that in claim 1,
step (a), a mixture is formed by dissolving a polymer in a
monomer or comonomers, and claim 1, step (a), recites that a
mixture of partially polymerized monomer or comonomers is
provided until a degree of conversion is within about 1% to
about 5% of the onset of gel effect. Thus, it is clear that
claim 1 is open to all of the conversion being provided by
conversion of the monomer or comonomers, whereas claim 5
requires that at least some of the conversion is provided by a
dissolved polymer.
The examiner argues that it is not clear in claims 1, 20
and 25 how a pseudo core-shell has a core and a shell since
“pseudo” usually means false or pretended (answer, pages 10-
12). A pseudo core-shell, the examiner argues, does not have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007