Appeal No. 96-0607
Application No. 08/134,778
with claim 8, would have been prima facie obvious based on the
disclosure and teachings of Daniel and Barnett. We note that
appellants have not presented any objective evidence of
nonobviousness, on this record, which would serve to rebut the
prima facie case. Considering the totality of the record,
including appellants’ arguments, we conclude that the
preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of obviousness
within the meaning of § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 8-13, 15, 24-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Daniel or Roncari in view of Barnett
or Bowman further in view of Chmelir, Smith ‘224, Smith ‘359,
and Moradi-Araghi is affirmed.
Appealed claims 14, 16, 30 and 32 all contain the
limitation that the ammonium salt of AMPS is used to prepare
the latex composition. As discussed above, Daniel and Barnett
disclose and teach the sodium salt of AMPS to prepare latex
compositions. The examiner applies the Chmelir, Smith ‘224,
Smith ‘359, and Moradi-Araghi references to show the art-
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007