Appeal No. 1996-4170
Application 08/413,657
Our review of the examiner’s position leads us to conclude that the examiner has
not considered the disclosure of poly-DADMAC in Finck in the proper context. In Finck,
poly-DADMAC is not one of the polymers which are part of the invention described in that
patent. Rather, poly-DADMAC is described in Finck as a conventional pitch control agent
and is used only as a comparison in order to show that the copolymers used in the Finck
invention provide an improvement over such previously known pitch control agents. See
column 5, lines 61-64 of Finck. Thus, one reading Finck must read its disclosure of poly-
DADMAC in the context of its description as a comparative compound, not part of of
Finck’s invention. This is important in this case since the examples of Finck were
performed in a laboratory setting (column 5, lines 4-59), not in a papermaking machine,
which is the environment required by the claim 1 on appeal.
The examiner has also misdescribed the disclosure of Shair as teaching the use of
“polyquaternary compounds” as biocides. Shair actually teaches that specified
polyquaternary amines function as biocides, not polyquaternary compounds in general.
See column 1, lines 5-16 of Shair, disclosing polyquaternary amines having a specified
formula.
When Finck and Shair are read in the correct context, the examiner’s case falls
short. While Finck indicates that poly-DADMAC is a conventional pitch control agent in
papermaking, the examiner has not relied upon references which actually describe adding
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007