Appeal 2006-2729
Application 10/193,363
surfactants having the claimed properties, “which are generally required for
formation of micelle aggregates,” with the compressed CO2 phase form an
aggregate system having aggregates comprising the functional material and
surfactants, wherein “formation of dispersed aggregates occurs by formation
of micelle aggregates” (id.).
With respect to the alternative grounds of rejection under §§ 102(b)
and 103(a), the Examiner contends Hendrickson discloses dyes having a
particle size in the range 0.5 to 10 nm in a perfluoropolyether dispersing
medium which reads on the claimed surfactants (Answer 7). The Examiner
further contends that any difference between the claimed nanofluids and the
disclosure of the reference would have been obvious because one of ordinary
skill would have employed dyes in the range of less than 100 nm including
the range of 0.5 to 5 nm shown by Hendrickson in dyes of this particle size
in other dispersing media (id. 7-8).
Appellants contend the claimed nanofluids encompassed by claim 19
are patentable over Hendrickson (Br. 12-13). Appellants contend the
claimed nanofluids are obtained by the process of claim 15 and thus
“necessarily comprise precipitated nanoscale material particles which are .
. . composite particles of average diameter from 0.5 to less than 10
nanometers individually comprised of both the functional material and the
surfactant material” which “precipitated composite particles . . . have
nanoscale dimension in accordance with the nanofluid definition” (id. 12;
original emphasis deleted). Appellants contend that in contrast, Hendrickson
“provides a method for the formation of a dispersion of nanosized pigment
in a medium (an aqueous or organic liquid),” the “particles . . . are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013