Appeal No. 1996-2336
Application 08/270,345
The examiner argues that the term “unemulsified” has no
support in the original specification (answer, pages 4-5).
The preamble of appellant’s claim 12 requires that the
emulsion is “free of unemulsified silicone oil”. Support for
this limitation is found in the specification at page 9, lines
4-7. Consequently, appellant’s specification indicates that
appellant was in possession of a method which produces an
emulsion which is free of unemulsified silicone oil.
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection of claims 1 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Graiver
Graiver’s examples 9 and 10 disclose methods wherein a
precursor emulsion made of a cyclicsiloxane, a nonionic
surfactant and water is added to a mixture of
dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid and water. As indicated in
appellant’s specification (page 13, lines 7-10),
dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid can serve as both an ionic
surfactant and a catalyst.
Appellant argues that Graiver mechanically pre-emulsifies
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007