Appeal No. 96-0607 Application No. 08/134,778 anionic surfactants (column 3, lines 40-41) and thus would have suggested to the artisan the use of diphenyloxide disulfonate in place of the alkyl-aryl sulfonate emulsifier5 in the emulsion polymerization of Daniel involving the AMPS comonomer (column 3, lines 45-50). Accordingly, we conclude that the subject matter of appealed claim 8 would have been prima facie obvious based on the disclosure and teachings of Daniel and Barnett.6 Appellants argue that Daniels alone does not suggest the combination of a salt of AMPS and a diphenyl sulfonate surfactant (brief, paragraph bridging pages 3-4). Appellants further argue that Barnett does not disclose any core/shell 5It should be noted that a reference of record, not applied by the examiner, suggests improved stability for latex systems produced by emulsion polymerization when using the DOWFAX surfactant (an alkyl diphenyloxide disulfonate compound). See Dow, “Increasing mechanical stability and reactor yields with DOWFAX anionic surfactants for emulsion polymerization applications”, pp. 1-12, Dec. 1986. 6The examiner has relied upon Chmelir, Smith ‘224 and ‘359, and Moradi-Araghi to show the relative equivalence of sodium and ammonium salts of AMPS in the art (answer, pages 4- 5; brief, pages 6-7). These references are discussed below with respect to the claims on appeal limited to the ammonium salt of AMPS. A discussion of the Roncari and Bowman references is not necessary to reach our decision. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007