Ex parte LEITCH et al. - Page 5

              Appeal No. 96-0937                                                                                         
              Application 08/203,723                                                                                     

              fact that the plasticizer according to the present invention may be a citrate and that the                 
              cited patents use “sodium citrate.”                                                                        
                     In pursuing this appeal, appellants explain at page 3 of the Appeal Brief (Paper                    
              No. 16, January 23, 1995) that sodium citrate does not meet the requirements of the                        
              claims on appeal in regard to the nonvolatile plasticizer.  The examiner apparently                        
              agreed that sodium citrate is not a nonvolatile plasticizer according to the present                       
              invention since the examiner pointed to other disclosure in the Bolich references in                       
              restating the rejections in the Examiner’s Answer.  Specifically the examiner pointed to                   
              column 24, lines 35-53 of Bolich N646 and column 18 of Bolich N658 at page 3 of the                        
              Examiner’s Answer as disclosing the nonvolatile plasticizer required by the claims on                      
              appeal.  In addition, the examiner noted at page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer that the                       
              present specification teaches that silicone copolyols can be used as the plasticizer and                   
              that Bolich N658 “discloses various silicone compounds at col. 10, line 35 to cols. 11-                    
              12, which can be construed as (iii).”                                                                      
                     At pages 2-3 of the first Reply Brief filed June 1, 1995 (Paper No. 18), appellants                 
              went to great lengths to point out that none of the portions of the Bolich patents relied                  
              upon by the examiner as disclosing silicone copolyols actually describe those                              
              compounds.  However, appellants pointed out in the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of                         
              the first Reply Brief that, while silicone copolyols are not disclosed in the cited sections               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007