Appeal No. 96-0607
Application No. 08/134,778
of claims 14, 16, 30 and 32 on page 7 of the brief. See 37 3
CFR § 1.192(c)(5) and (6)(1993). Accordingly, we will address
each group of claims
separately. Claim 8 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
8. A corrosion resistant latex composition comprising an
emulsion in water of a core/shell polymer prepared by free
radical emulsion polymerization techniques wherein one of the
monomers utilized in the production of the polymer comprises a
salt of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid and wherein
the free radical polymerization is conducted in the presence
of a diphenyl sulfonate surfactant.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Daniel et al. (Daniel) 4,217,260 Aug. 12,
1980
Roncari 4,226,747 Oct. 7,
1980
Smith (Smith ‘224) 4,485,224 Nov. 27,
1984
Smith (Smith ‘359) 4,617,359 Oct. 14,
1986
Barnett et al. (Barnett) 4,812,510 Mar. 14,
1989 Moradi-Araghi et al. 5,100,931 Mar.
31, 1992
(Moradi-Araghi)
3In paragraph 11 on page 2 of the answer, the examiner
notes that appellants state that the claims do not stand or
fall together but “fails to present reasons in support
thereof”. However, the examiner addresses the subject matter
of claims 14, 16, 30 and 32 on pages 4-5 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007