Appeal No. 1996-2738
Application 08/252,501
Appellants argue that Jarowenko does not disclose the
polycationic reagents employed in appellants’ process of
preparation (Brief, page 4). This argument is not persuasive
since the process of preparation as recited in claim 25 on
appeal has not been shown to produce a substantially different
product than that disclosed by Jarowenko. See Wertheim,
supra.
Appellants assert that several critical limitations are
neither disclosed nor suggested by Hofreiter or Jarowenko
(Brief, page 5). However, three of these four “critical
limitations” are process of preparation limitations which are
given little weight
since the prior art discloses an additive product identical or
substantially identical to the claimed additive. The other
“critical limitation” was a “[c]ationic polysaccharide
derivative having at least two cationic moieties bonded to
each derivatized saccharide monomer”, which has been discussed
above in our decision and also by the examiner on pages 3-4 of
the Answer.
Appellants further argue that Jarowenko discloses a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007