Appeal No. 1997-0998
Application 08/251,494
However, the examiner has failed to establish, on this record,
that methyl cellulose is a well known adhesive and that, as an
adhesive, it would have functioned as a sealant as required by
claim 1 on appeal. The examiner has not shown that the other
“long chain polymers” of Franz are known adhesives or
sealants, i.e., why would one of ordinary skill in the art
have selected an adhesive such as methyl cellulose as the
“long chain polymer.”
The examiner fails to state any conclusion regarding the
obviousness of adding a sealant to the water of the liquid jet
(Answer, page 4). However, in the examiner’s response to
appellant’s arguments on page 5 of the Answer, the examiner
states:
[I]t is notorious that materials cut by high
velocity liquid jets retain some of the liquid at
the cut edges. Franz states that such wetting
occurs using his liquid jet cutting device although
the undesirable effects therefrom are reduced
(column 5, lines 5-7). Because Franz’ liquid jet is
a mixture of water and a long chain polymer it is
inherent that the wet edges will include the polymer
together with the water. As a result [the] liquid
jet will have some sealing effect on the wetted
edges. (Emphasis added).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007