Appeal No. 95-3858
Application 07/931,628
The examiner also explains that it is not clear from claim
10 “whether the two moieties specified are all the moieties that
may form part of the copolymer produced” (page 3 of Answer).
However, the examiner has not established that even assuming,
arguendo, that claim 10 is sufficiently broad to encompass
monomer units other than those specified, why the claim would be
indefinite or non-enabled to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Also, although the examiner states that claim 10 “is inaccurate
as it does not specify where the attachment of the polyalkylene
oxide is to the glycidyl moiety” (pages 3 and 4 of Answer), since
the examiner acknowledges that “[i]t is apparent that the
reaction site will be the epoxy part of the glycidyl” (page 4 of
Answer), and appellants agree with the examiner’s assessment,
manifestly, the examiner has not satisfied the burden of setting
forth a convincing line of reasoning why one of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand where the attachment of the
polyalkylene oxide is to the glycidyl moiety.
We will also not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Esselborn in view of
Polaski. The examiner recognizes that although Esselborn
discloses a copolymer of vinyl acetate and polyoxyalkylene ethers
of allyl and/or methallyl alcohol, the reference does not teach
or suggest the claimed copolymer of vinyl acetate and a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007