Appeal No. 2001-0647
Application 08/150,703
For example, the Examiner’s position is that resinous gums of Meyer
correspond to the filler/thickener of the instant invention (Answer, page 4). However,
Appellants’ specification draws a clear distinction between those materials which
are both thickeners and fillers and those which are simply fillers:
[a]lso included in compositions of the present invention is an
ingredient which is both a filler and thickener, such as one or more
mineral clays (e.g. attapulgite) and organic thickeners. More
specifically, such organic thickeners may be selected from the group
consisting of one or more of methyl cellulose and ethyl cellulose.
(Specification, sentences bridging pages 6 and 7)
It is also not clear from the Examiner’s analysis what component of the
elastic adhesive composition taught by Meyer corresponds to the binder ingredient
of the instant coating composition. The Examiner cites Meyer as teaching a
“polymer binder” (final rejection, page 3, line 6) or a “polymeric binder” (Answer,
page 4, line 12); but never indicates which component of Meyer’s composition
(listed in tabular form in column 2) he regards as being said “polymer” or “polymeric”
binder. Be that as it may, we note that Appellants regard various synthetic and
natural resins as binders (specification page 5, line 14).
Even if we accept the Examiner’s position that the elastic adhesive
compositions of Meyer are analogous to the coating compositions of the instant
invention and combine that disclosure with the general knowledge that resinous
gums are indeed used as thickeners, there is still no teaching in Meyer which
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007