Appeal No. 96-2810
Application 08/017,086
unpatentability of appellants’ product by process claims under
section 102 over the products produced by Norris’s process.
Appellants have two responses to the examiner’s findings.
First, appellants argue, “Norris does not anticipate
appellants’ invention under 35 USC 102(e) because Norris does
not disclose appellants’ thickener of a hydrophobically
modified hydroxyethyl- cellulose” (Amended Brief For
Appellants, p. 6). This argument does not respond to what
appears to be a reasonable finding by the examiner that the
thickeners of appellants’ and Norris’s glazed sanitary ceramic
articles are not apparent once the glaze has been fired
(Examiner's Answer, p. 5).
Second, appellants argue (Amended Brief For Appellants,
p. 6):
Moreover, Examples 1 and 2 on page 6 of the application
clearly demonstrates that the resulting glaze articles
using appellants’ novel formulation gave superior
unexpected
results over the prior art glaze. Norris uses xanthan
gum
as the thickener which is what appellants use as the
prior
art control of these experiments. Appellants invention
[sic, Appellants’] provided a faster drying time and
thicker glaze coating which displayed a lower tendency to
run or sag as well as containing fewer foam bubbles (see
lines 8 to 11 of page 6). Similar results were also
noted in Example 2. Therefore, Norris clearly does not
anticipate appellants’ invention.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007