Appeal No. 1998-1213
Application 08/450,506
The examiner appears to argue that 1) Meinhardt’s
examples upon which appellants’ calculated functionality
ratios of 1.55 to 1.69 (brief, page 5) are based have
polyolefin:dibasic acid ratios of about 1:2, 2) Meinhardt
teaches that the polyalkylene:acidic reactant ratio can be at
least 1:1.5 (col. 17, lines 28-30), 3) multiplying, say,
appellants’ calculated 1.64 functionality ratio by 1.5/2 gives
1.23, which falls within appellants’ recited functionality
ratio range of about 1.05 to 1.25, and 4) therefore, Meinhardt
anticipates appellants’ claimed invention (answer, page 5).
This argument is based upon functionality ratio, which is
calculated using the formula on page 5 of appellants’ brief,
being directly proportional to charge ratio regardless of
composition, and the examiner has not established this
relationship. The examiner, therefore, has not shown that
each limitation of the invention recited in any of appellants’
claims is disclosed in a single reference. Consequently, the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of appellants’ claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007