Appeal No. 1996-0584
Application No. 07/658,878
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 22, mailed
June 9, 1995) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellants’ brief
(Paper No. 21, filed March 23, 1995) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is a method of suspension polymerization of a monomeric
composition to produce uniformly sized particles having a narrow size distribution , which method4
comprises the steps of retaining a disperse phase component composed of the monomeric composition
and a continuous phase component composed of a medium in independent vessels, supplying the
disperse phase component and the continuous phase component from their respective vessels into a
uniform shear force generating field of a disperser simultaneously and continuously through associated
independent passageways, applying shear force in the disperser to form a dispersion of droplets having
a desired size, subsequently introducing the dispersion into a polymerization vessel, and completing a
polymerization reaction to produce the uniformly sized particles having a narrow size distribution.
4Appellants argue that the “narrow” size distribution of Vanzo is significantly greater than the “narrow”
size distribution claimed and described in the present specification (brief, page 9). However, the specification fails to
provide a specific definition of the claimed “narrow” size distribution. The inventive examples in the specification
were conducted using one specific combination of result effective variables, e.g., rotational speed, ratio of disperse
and continuous phase, gap spacing, etc. and, therefore, are of limited definitional value. Thus, in the event of further
prosecution, both the examiner and appellants should review whether the claimed “narrow” size distribution is
sufficiently definite to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007