Appeal No. 1996-3980
Application 08/290,125
invention encompassed by claim 1 based on the totality of the record, including all the factual evidence
of anticipation and obviousness in Chang and appellants’ arguments and evidence that the reference
does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention.
Appellants acknowledge that “Chang teaches magnetic particles formed by swelling porous
polymer particles and impregnating the particles with an aqueous solution of metal salt ion(s) which on
the addition of a basic reagent, the salts are converted to crystals of magnetite which are uniformly
distributed throughout the pores of the polymer particle” (brief, page 7). However, appellants submit
that the “product in Chang is not, it is believed, a nanoscopic Fe O species as in the present invention,
3 4
primarily based on color and particle size considerations and since” the process disclosed in appellants’
specification which utilizes an “Fe S intermediate” (see appealed claim 20) and “anaerobic conditions,
m n
was not used by Chang,” and thus that the “product obtained by Chang is believed to be substantially
or exclusively Fe O ” (brief, page 8). Appellants further contend that Chang discloses resins that are
2 3
water soluble, encapsulate the magnetic iron oxide particles in the pores of the resin and use metal
complexing agents to enhance the rate of metal binding, and thus does not disclose the “formation of
nanocomposite compositions with nanocrystalline Fe O particles which are intimately chemically
3 4
associated” with “an ion exchange resin of very low water solubility” (id.). Thus, appellants conclude
that Chang does not anticipate claim 1 under § 102(b), because the reference does not “disclose
nanocrystalline magnetic Fe O particles in intimate association (chemically or physically) with a water
3 4
insoluble ion exchange resin matrix,” and does not render the claimed invention obvious under § 103
because the reference does not teach or suggest the modifications necessary to arrive at the claimed
invention. (brief, pages 8-9).
We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments. We find that appellants do not express
any basis for their allegation with respect to the size of the magnetic iron oxide particles but rely on
Ziolo ‘866 with respect to the alleged formation of Fe O in Chang. Considering first the matter of the5
2 3
5We have not considered the “Science, Vol 257” article that appellants cite at page 8 of their brief
because this document is not of record and it does not appear that the same was attached to the brief
or other submission.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007