Appeal No. 1997-1298
Application No. 08/227,158
D. With respect to the claimed invention, neither reference teaches:
1. Contacting a whitewater emulsion with ultrafiltration membrane under
laminar flow conditions.
2. A polymer latex recovered from whitewater emulsion, which latex is of
such quality that it may be blended into the polymer latex product at a level of at least 5% by
weight with no deleterious effect upon performance properties of the product.
Opinion
35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, rejection
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph. We
reverse. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand what is
claimed. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner argues that the "product" is indefinite because claim 22 recites a
polymer latex and that a polymer latex product implies other than the stated polymer latex.
No logical basis is seen for the examiner's position.
Claim 22 is directed to a "polymer latex." The "polymer latex" is formed by treating
in the specified manner whitewater obtained by diluting a "polymer latex product." That
"product" is simply the end result of a polymerization process which forms a latex. The
claimed "polymer latex" is of such quality that it can be blended into the "product", i.e., the
"polymer latex product" in the amount specified in the claim with no deleterious effect on
the "polymer latex product."
To whatever extent claim 22 may be confusing upon reading it for the first time
without resort to the specification, that confusion is readily dissipated when the claim is
read in light of the specification as required. In re Moore, supra.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007