Appeal No. 2000-0812 Page 10
Application No. 08/989,469
various teachings from these references, as set forth by the
Examiner, to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 through 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Vrancken in view of Appellants’ admission of
prior art and Coppens.
We note that independent claim 19 includes the
limitations related to the size and polydispersity of
hydrophobic polymer particles of independent claim 11. While
Verburgh teaches an anodized aluminum support, the reference
does not teach the claimed average size and polydispersity
related to the polymer particles. Therefore, Verburgh does
not overcome the deficiencies discussed above in the other
references. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007