Appeal No. 1997-3093
Application 08/415,384
As for claims 25-27, the examiner argues that selection
of the recited process conditions would have required mere
optimization (supplemental answer, page 2). The examiner,
however, does not explain why optimizing the DeSimone process
would produce particles having the size and surfactant layer
thickness recited in appellants’ independent claims.
Appellants state that their particles are to be used to make
developer compositions (specification, page 1), whereas
DeSimone discloses
that his particles may be dissolved in a solvent and sprayed
onto a surface to form a coating, or may be used to form
molded articles such as valves, bottles, films, fibers, resins
and matrices for composite materials (col. 7, lines 43-51).
The examiner has not explained why the disclosed uses of
DeSimone’s particles are sufficiently similar to that of
appellants that there is reason to believe that optimizing
DeSimone’s process would result in particles being produced
which have the size and surfactant layer thickness recited in
appellants’ independent claims, or provided any other reason
why optimizing DeSimone’s process would produce particles
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007