Appeal No. 1999-2158
Application No. 08/971,460
the agent comprises alkaline material containing no metal
cation.
In addition to the admitted prior art, the examiner
relies
upon the following reference as evidence of obviousness:
Fischer, “Basic Factors in Mechanical Dispersion,” Colloidal
Dispersions, p. 266 (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1950).
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over “[a]ppellant’s [sic, appellants’]
prior art teaching (hereinafter PAT) in view of Fischer.”
Answer, page 3. We reverse the examiner’s rejection
essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief and the
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that claim 1 on appeal is written in
“Jepson form” and thus appellants admit that the invention is
“substantially known” (Answer, page 4). The examiner
therefore finds that the difference between the admitted
“prior art teaching” and the claimed process is the inclusion
of an alkaline agent to produce a pH between 6 and 9 (id.).
The examiner also takes notice that the viscosity of a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007