Appeal No. 95-3647
Application No. 08/169,782
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA
1977).
Appellants contend at page 9 of the Brief that the "critical
feature of the herein claimed microdispersions is accomplished by
the use of an emulsifier which prevents the micelles of polymer
solution from detrimentally agglomerating." However, as
explained by the examiner, the purpose of the Anderson disclosure
is to prepare commercially stable emulsions, and Anderson
specifically discloses the use of emulsifiers that are preferred
by appellants. Inasmuch as appellants state at page 6 of their
Brief that the use of suitable emulsifiers "would be well within
the skill of one versed in the art to which this invention
relates," we concur with the examiner that only routine
experimentation would have been required by the skilled artisan
to select the emulsifiers of Anderson that result in a stable
microemulsion. We do not subscribe to appellants' argument that
Anderson "does not focus specifically on the use of an emulsifier
which prevents the detrimental agglomeration of polymer micelles
as required by the instant claims" (page 10 of Brief), since
Anderson expressly focuses upon the attainment of stable
microemulsions and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007