Appeal No. 95-0757
Application 07/795,307
(a) a water-in-oil emulsifier;
(b) from 50 to 5,000 ppm of at least one crosslinking
agent;
(c) from 1 to 20% by weight, based on the monomers
employed in the polymerization of at least one oil-in-water
emulsifier; and
(d) free-radical polymerization initiators;
(ii) adding a protective colloid to the water-in-
oil emulsion in an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight, based on
the polymer after the polymerization is complete;
(iii) removing water from the resultant water-in-oil
polymer suspension by azeotropic distillation; and
(iv) isolating the suspended finely divided polymer
powder;
wherein sorbitan esters are not employed as both said water-
in-oil emulsifier and said protective colloid.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Friedrich et al. (Friedrich) 2,982,749 May 2, 1961
Schmiedel 2 3,282,497 Nov. 1, 1966
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 3,734,873 May 22, 1973
Elfers 4,125,508 Nov. 14, 1978
Yamasaki et al. (Yamasaki) 4,459,396 Jul. 10, 1984
2 The patent to Schmiedel has been used by the examiner ?to better
support? the examiner’s position for the known use of centrifugation of small
particles in solid-liquid separation. See the examiner’s Answer at page 10.
However, we observe that Schmiedel is omitted from all statements of rejection in
the Answer. When a reference is relied on to support a rejection even in a ?minor
capacity?, ordinarily that reference should be positively included in the
statement of rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n3 (CCPA 1970). Thus, we have not considered the Schmiedel disclosures.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007