Appeal No. 95-1302
Application 07/729,281
polydimethylsiloxane resin” disclosed by Lamb. It is unclear,
however, whether the examiner relies on the former or the latter
in rejecting the claims before us. Apparently, the examiner
believes that Lamb describes the organosilicon compound recited
in claim 17. The statement of rejection, however, lacks clarity
because the examiner does not state whether reliance is placed on
the “silicone polymer” and/or the “hydrophobic cationic aqueous
emulsion of a highly branched and crosslinked polydimethyl-
siloxane resin” disclosed by Lamb.
If the examiner relies on Lamb’s “silicone polymer” to fully
meet the claimed subject matter, we believe that such reliance is
misplaced. The general term “silicone polymer” lacks the
requisite specificity to support a rejection under 35 USC § 102
of claims 17 and 19 through 26, which recite specific organo-
silicon compounds depicted by structural formula.
It is apparent from the appeal Brief that applicants assume
the examiner relies on Lamb’s “hydrophobic cationic aqueous
emulsion of a highly branched and crosslinked silicone polymer”
in rejecting the claims on appeal. That emulsion is described at
column 2, lines 35 through 60 of Lamb, note particularly the
formula illustrated at column 2, line 41. However, the examiner
has not established, as a factual matter, that Lamb’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007