Appeal No. 2000-1747
Application No. 08/784,237
The examiner finds that “Whitbourne discloses in examples
8, 17 and 18 mixing organic acid or inorganic acid into the
PVP and in example 5(e) using urea formaldehyde resin”
(Answer, page 9). The examiner does not identify where
Whitbourne teaches “organic acid or inorganic acid” but
considers the acetic acid of the aforementioned examples to be
an osmolality promoting agent in view of appellant’s
disclosure that organic acids are useful as osmolality
promoting agents (id., citing page 3, line 24 -
page 4, line 5, of appellant’s specification). However, as
correctly argued by appellant (Brief, page 14), appellant’s
specification first defines osmolality promoting agents and
then lists classes of compounds which may include these agents
(specification, page 3, lines 24-36). Appellant has
challenged the examiner’s finding that acetic acid is an
osmolality promoting agent (Brief, page 14) and Whitbourne
teaches that acetic acid is only used as a solvent for the
hydrophilic polymer (see column 3, lines 8-10). On this
record, the examiner has not met the burden of proof that the
acetic acid exemplified by Whitbourne meets the claimed
limitation of an “osmolality promoting agent.” Accordingly,
-11-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007