Appeal No. 1996-1942 14
Application No. 07/977,834
is no heating step disclosed in Ruus as required by the subject matter of claim 1 directed
to a method of producing a microencapsulated adhesive. In addition, as we found supra,
on the record before us, there is no evidence to support the examiner’s position that the
UV polymerization of the methyl methacrylate is the equivalent of heating as required by
the claimed subject matter.
As for the rejection of Russ with Ozono, the combination of the references fails
for the same reasons supra that Sawai could not be combined with Ozono. The essential
teaching of Ozono is directed to the partial polymerization of monomers such that they
form the wall of the capsule with the inner portion remaining unpolymerized. In this
manner they act as a replacement for the walls of Sawai and Ruus both formed by
interfacial polymerization. Accordingly, it is not seen why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have used the monomer system of Ozono in the method of Ruus.
As for the combination of Ruus with Wolinski, directed to claim 9, the latter
reference is relied upon in the manner stated supra. Accordingly, it does not remedy the
deficiencies of the combination of Ruus in view of Ozono.
Applying our findings to independent claim 21 directed to a product by process,
it is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that Russ discloses a
microencapsulated monomer and initiator having walls of a polyamide wherein the
polymerization may occur within the microcapsules subsequent to their formation.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007