Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of Beach.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable Tsutsumi in view of Collins or Patel.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘043.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘695.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
patentable over Tsutsumi in view of Lin.
On pages 6-7 of the brief, appellants state that the claims
do not stand or fall together, and state that each of the claims
in each of the rejections are to be specifically and separately
considered. Hence, we consider claims within each grouping of
claims to the extent that appellants provide arguments supporting
patentability for a particular claim. 37 CFR §1.192
(c)(7)(8)(2000).
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27, 28, 31,
41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Collins
On page 7 of the brief, appellants argue that Collins, at
column 5, beginning at line 43, sets forth that the water based
emulsion polymerization to prepare the SAAP, preferably occurs in
the presence of a nonionic surfactant and an anionic surfactant.
Appellants state that these surfactants are utilized to prepare
the SAAP. Appellants states that the PPAE is the reaction
product of a surfactant stabilized SAAP and a poly(alkylenimine),
and refer to column 2, beginning at line 48 of Collins.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007