Appeal No. 94-2078
Application 07/834,755
esters, such as vinyl acetate,” as one type of monomer which is copolymerizable with vinyl
chloride in Kuwata (col. 5, lines 9-10), would not have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary
skill in this art that the manner of addition of the mercaptan with other ingredients to form an
aqueous suspension polymerization medium which will contain vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate as
comonomers would, indeed, change. Kuwata does not disclose any higher homologues of vinyl
acetate, which comonomer has two carbon atoms in the acid moiety.
Accordingly, in considering the teachings of Kuwata as a whole, we must conclude that
while this reference discloses the addition of all or part of the amount of the mercaptan chain
transfer agent to be used in the polymerization reaction prior to the start of polymerization to one
of ordinary skill in this art, there is no direction or suggestion therein to such person to
“encapsulate” at least a portion of the mercaptan to be used in the reaction in an “encapsulating
amount” of a vinyl ester of fatty acids, having 4 to 26 carbon atoms in the acid moiety, prior to
combining these two admixed ingredients with any or all other aqueous suspension polymerization
medium ingredients. We find no teachings which would bridge the apparent gap between the
claimed invention before us and the teachings in Kuwata in either Chujo or Uraneck. We find that
Chujo adds all of the bulk polymerization ingredients together including the mercaptan chain
transfer agent and does not disclose any higher homologues of vinyl propionate, which
comonomer has three carbon atoms in the acid moiety (e.g., col. 1, lines 66-67, col. 2, lines 44-
46), while Uraneck mixes together a number of emulsion polymerization ingredients which can
include “a polymerizable monomer” and does not disclose any higher homologues of vinyl acetate
(e.g., col. 1, lines 54-59, col. 2, lines 48-53, col. 8, line 22). No other evidence of knowledge in
the art or scientific reasoning has been adduced on the record by the examiner (answer, pages 3-4;
supplemental answer, Paper No. 15, page 1).
Accordingly, the record before us supports the inference that the examiner has relied on
information gleaned from appellant’s disclosure in formulating the grounds of rejection on appeal.
Dow Chemical, supra; Warner, supra.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007