Appeal No. 1996-1942 13
Application No. 07/977,834
not constitute a new ground of rejection. See Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1303, 190 USPQ at
427; In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961).
The Rejections over Ruus
Ruus disclose a process of encapsulation. See column 1, lines 10-11. The
encapsulated product has an insoluble shell formed by interfacial polymerization. See
column 2, lines 25-26 and 45-59. We previously found that Ruus specifically disclosed
that, “[t]he encapsulation technique can also be used in the preparation of pressure
sensitive adhesives for application to placards, envelopes, etc.[,] where it is necessary that
the surface remain non-adhesive until adherence is desired.” See Ruus, column 1, lines
54-57. Included among the materials to be encapsulated are activated monomers, i.e.,
monomers in the presence of a catalyst. See column 4, lines 28-30. The specific
monomer exemplified is methyl methacrylate. See Examples 6 and 11. In each of said
examples a microcapsule is formed from methyl methacrylate and azodiisobutyronitrile, a
free radical initiator. A thin sample of microcapsules is subjected to UV radiation to
convert it to a solid polymer. Id. Ruus further discloses that, “it may be desirable that
the internal phase have a particular state during encapsulation, but is converted to a
second state after completion of the encapsulation process, i.e., a liquid monomer
converted to a polymer.” See column 8, lines 60-65.
Applying the above findings to the independent process claim, we find that there
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007