Appeal No. 2000-0836
Application No. 08/727,693
specification (page 28, lines 28-30) defines an “aqueous admixture”
in this alternative sense as follows:
. . . an aqueous admixture of the dry polymer or aqueous
dispersion is prepared by intermixing the dry polymer or
aqueous dispersion with water . . . [underlining added
for emphasis]
Accordingly, appellants’ arguments to the contrary
notwithstanding, one need not start with the aqueous dispersion to
obtain an aqueous admixture; by the teachings of appellants’ own
specification one may start with dry polymer, rather than a
dispersion, to form a dilute polymer solution.
Appellants do not dispute that the instant claims are
anticipated, or rendered obvious, by the applied prior art if those
claims are broadly construed as the examiner has done. Since we
hold that the examiner’s broad interpretation is reasonable and
consistent with appellants’ specification, we shall affirm all of
the rejections at issue.
Moreover, in the event of further prosecution of the involved
subject matter, the examiner should take note of the fact that at
least some of the applied prior art references do teach aqueous
dispersions of polymers, statements by the examiner to the contrary
notwithstanding. For instance, see Takeda (590) (Abstract; Example
5). Also, see In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007