Ex Parte Krishnan - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2004-2233                                                        
          Application No. 10/100,331                                                  



          monomer may be as follows:                                                  
                    H-CR1=CR2COOR3-O-(CH2CH2O)n-R4                                    
          wherein each of R1 and R2 represents a hydrogen atom, an alkyl              
          group having 1-4 carbon atoms, or a phenyl group, R 3 represents            
          an alkylene group having 2 or 3 carbon atoms, R 4 represents a              
          hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1-4 carbon atoms, and n              
          represents the number of repeating oxyethylene units.  (Column 2,           
          lines 22-38.)                                                               
               The appellant argues that Masuda does not disclose the                 
          polyoxyethylene-containing monomer recited in the appealed                  
          claims.  (Appeal brief at 5; reply brief filed Jun. 30, 2004,               
          pages 1-2.)  We agree.                                                      
               As we discussed above, Masuda teaches that the                         
          polyoxyethylene moiety of the polyoxyethylene-containing monomer            
          has an average molecular weight of 2,000 to 10,000.  By contrast,           
          “n” is at most 30 in the here recited polyoxyethylene monomer (a)           
          and each of “n” and “m” is at most 15 in the here recited                   
          polyoxyethylene monomer (b) and (c).                                        
               Accordingly, with respect to Masuda, it cannot be said that            
          the examiner has adequately established a prima facie case of               
          anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.                                         
               The rejection based on Michels stands on different footing.            


                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007