Appeal No. 96-1142
Application 07/939,180
the examiner states (answer, page 3), that the ratio of
dispersions recited in appellants’ independent claim, i.e.,
97:3 to 60:40 based on the solids content of the dispersions,
is not met by Chao. The examiner argues that once the
dispersions are mixed, the water in the dispersions is
indistinguishable and that, therefore, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have reasonably expected Chao to achieve the
same results as appellants (answer, pages 3-4). This argument
is not well taken because the mixing
of the water from Chao’s dispersions does not change the
relative amount of polymer solids from the dispersions which,
the examiner states (answer, page 3), is different than that
recited in appellants’ independent claim.
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the relative amount
of solids from Chao’s dispersions to obtain optimum results
(supplemental answer mailed on February 24, 1995, paper no.
12, page 1). Chao indicates that the optimum ratio of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007