Appeal No. 1997-3392
Application 08/297,946
a true core and a true shell. See id. The examiner gives
only her interpretation of “pseudo core-shell”, but does not
set forth what she considers to have been the interpretation
of this term by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
the specification and the prior art. The specification
indicates that a pseudo core-shell polymer has a gradual
gradient of composition (page 4) and has a less distinct
boundary region between the core and shell than does a core-
shell polymer (page 16). This less distinct boundary, i.e.,
gradient, is shown in the appellants’ figure 2. Thus, it
would have been reasonably clear to one of ordinary skill in
the art, in view of the appellants’ specification, that a
pseudo core-shell polymer is one having a core and a shell
with a concentration gradient between them and, accordingly,
having a core-shell boundary which is less distinct than that
of a core-shell polymer.
The examiner argues that it is not clear in claims 4 and
22 from what the temperature is reduced (answer, pages 10-11).
The temperature reduction, the examiner argues, does not
necessarily correspond to the point of obtaining the desired
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007