Appeal No. 1999-2423
Application 08/825,204
The examiner argues that Hagguist’s teaching that “[t]he
choice and combination of fluid, pressure, temperature and
direction will depend upon the nature of the latex/filler
binder system (e.g., standard carpet with primary and
secondary backing [FIG. 16A], with foam secondary backing
[FIG. 16B], and with heavy rubber secondary backing [FIG.
16C], and the combination best suited for the particular
binder system being loosened and debonded” (col. 4, lines 5-
13), indicates that Hagguist’s chemicals are not limited to
surfactants because there would be less need for a choice of
fluid if the fluid can only be a surfactant (answer, page 5).
The examiner has not established that Hagguist’s choice of
fluid would not have been considered by one of ordinary skill
in the art to include choice of surfactant. Regardless, even
if Hagguist’s disclosure, including the disclosure that
surfactants are “one type of chemical” (col. 4, line 14),
would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that
the chemical can be other than a surfactant, the examiner has
not established that Hagguist’s chemicals encompass materials
which fall within the scope of the appellants’ definition of
“chemical softening agent” or that Hagguist would have fairly
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007