Appeal No. 98-3269
Application No. 08/703,266
polymerization processes wherein one of the claimed reactants
is not used, there is no factual basis for concluding that the
reference processes inherently produce particles having the
claimed particle size distribution. Also, Georges discloses
the production of particles with a preferable medium diameter
of from about 6 to about 12 Fm (column 11, line 55), whereas
Wada obtains polymer particles in the range of from 1 to 30 Fm
(column 2, line 18). Hence, it can be seen that both
references disclose polymer particles having a size
distribution outside the claimed range. Furthermore, another
fact undermining the examiner's conclusion of inherency is
that the process of Wada requires the use of a hardly soluble
dispersant, such as tricalcium phosphate, whereas appellants'
specification teaches no such use of a hardly soluble
dispersant in the polymerization process.
Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that the
applied prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed invention.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007