Appeal No. 96-2323
Application 08/116,555
The examiner has merely argued that appellants should have
provided more examples and that appellants have not provided
evidence or reasoning which shows that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have extrapolated the evidence to the full
scope of the claims (supplemental answer, pages 5-6). Thus,
we are not persuaded that the evidence relied upon by
appellants is insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims
1-5 and 7-17.
Rejection of claim 18
Appellants’ claim 18 is directed toward a water-in-oil
emulsion which is prepared by a polymerization process wherein
the dissolved oxygen concentration of the emulsion before
polymerization is about 100 ppb or less. As indicated above,
the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dissolved oxygen
concentration of about 100 ppb or less when making Fan’s
water-in-oil emulsion is not well founded. Also, the examiner
has not explained why a water-in-oil emulsion made according
to Fan’s procedure wherein the dissolved oxygen concentration
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007