Appeal No. 1996-3560
Application No. 08/432,560
and limit our consideration to said claim. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) 1995.
We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable in
view of the applied prior art. We will sustain the examiner’s
rejection relying primarily on the references to Hombach and
Weissgerber.
Appellants state that their emulsifiers are “chemically
distinguishable” from those of the Hombach reference and are
used in a different manner. We disagree. Our interpretation3
of the disclosure of Hombach differs from appellants. The
reference to Hombach and the claimed subject matter use the
term “emulsifier” in a different manner. The various
interpretations of the term, “emulsifier,” by Hombach and
appellants respectively, results in confusion in applying the
Hombach reference to the claimed subject matter.
We find that the emulsifier of the claimed subject matter
is used in the polymerization of the hydroxy containing
3 Brief, page 4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007