Appeal 2006-2729
Application 10/193,363
microemulsions is quite complex and the formation of three dimensional
phase diagrams is a non-trivial task” (id. 10-11).
The Examiner contends, with respect to Appellants’ explanation based
on micelle aggregates, the claims are not direct to formation of such
aggregates and the disclosure and claims “do not require solubilization of the
functional material” (id. 11-12). The Examiner contends it would be undue
experimentation to one skilled in the art to determine suitable functional
materials in view of the “statement in the specification that the ‘criteria for
choice (identification) of specific surfactants to be used for solubilization of
materials in compressed CO2 cannot be made based solely on the knowledge
of surfactants used in traditional liquid (aqueous or non-aqueous) phase
systems’ (. . . page 8, lines 9-12)” (Answer 12-13; Examiner’s emphasis
deleted).
Appellants reply the Examiner’s analysis ignores Appellants’
explanation in the Brief “that it is the combination of teachings . . . [in the
Specification] and the cited references [in the Specification] (and general
knowledge of one skilled in the micelle aggregate dispersion formation art)
that enables the claimed invention” (reply Br. 2; see also 1-8). Appellants
contend specific guidance is not required to select suitable materials and
ratios thereof, as “the precise ratios will depend upon the specific classes of
materials employed,” and the Examiner has not established “reasonable basis
for the . . . contention that the general guidance provided is not sufficient and
would require undue experimentation” (id. 3). Appellants further contend
while the claims do not state the formation of micelle aggregates, the
Specification explains that the interaction of functional material and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013