Ex parte MUELLER et al. - Page 3




         Appeal No. 1998-2425                                    Page 3          
         Application No. 08/656,871                                              


                   emulsifier, in the aqueous phase, under heating               
                   and in the presence of at least one water-                    
                   soluble initiator (IN) of formula (I)                         
                                 M R1                                            
                   where M represents an alkali metal cation,                    
                   and                                                           
                       R  represents an anion of a peroxyacid or                 
                        1                                                        
                   azo-group-containing acid,                                    
                       wherein said (IN) is present in an amount                 
                   of 0.5-1.5 wt.% based on weight of the monomers;              
                       emulsifying-in (meth)acrylic acid while                   
                   maintaining an elevated reaction temperature                  
                   such that the ratio of butyl acrylate to                      
                   (meth)acrylic acid ranges from 99.5:0.5 to 90:10              
                   parts by weight; and                                          
                       adding a second redox initator (RI) to                    
                   complete the polymerization and wherein said                  
                   process is carried out under conditions of core               
                   and shell polymerization.                                     
              The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the          
         examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                           
         Kowalski et al. (Kowalski)       4,427,836          Jan. 24,            
         1984                                                                    
              Claims 16-24 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103           
         as being unpatentable over Kowalski.                                    
                                     OPINION                                     
              In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given             
         careful consideration to the appellants' specification and              
         claims, to the prior art reference as applied by the examiner,          
         and to the opposing viewpoints advanced by the appellants and           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007