Appeal No. 96-2323
Application 08/116,555
(col. 13, line 65 - col. 14, line 4). The examiner argues
that although the level of vacuum is not specified in Fan’s
example 1, and the reference does not disclose what is meant
by “thoroughly deoxygenated”, appellants also do not define
what is meant by this term and, therefore, have failed to show
that Fan’s example 1 is not the closest prior art
(supplemental answer, pages 3-4). This argument is deficient
in that the examiner has provided no technical reasoning as to
why the dissolved oxygen concentration is reduced to a lower
level in Fan’s example 1 than in Fan’s example 26.
The examiner argues that there are differences between
Fan’s compositions and the composition used in the Kanda
declaration, and that the initiator concentration, monomer
concentration and emulsion stability affect reaction exotherm
which, Fan teaches, affects agglomeration (supplemental
answer, pages 4-5). Even if the examiner’s assertion that
initiator concentration, monomer concentration and emulsion
stability affect reaction exotherm is correct, the argument is
not persuasive because what Fan teaches is that the inability
to control reaction exotherm can result in agglomeration (col.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007