Ex Parte KOHR et al - Page 2


          Appeal No. 2001-0127                                                        
          Application No. 09/121,636                                                  

               The subject matter on appeal relates to a polymer                      
          composition (claims 1-5) and to a "method for improving the                 
          burnish response of a floor polish composition" comprising using            
          the polymer composition in the floor polish composition (claims             
          6-10).  Further details of this appealed subject matter are                 
          recited in illustrative claims 1 and 6 reproduced below:                    
                    1.  A polymer composition comprising an aqueous                   
               suspension or dispersion of a water insoluble polymer                  
               of ethylenically unsaturated monomers, said polymer                    
               having a Tg of at least 35°C and comprising 25% to 65%                 
               by weight units of isobutyl methacrylate (IBMA) and                    
               butyl methacrylate (BMA) and 3% to 50% by weight units                 
               of at least one acidic monomer.                                        
                    6.  A method for improving the burnish response                   
               of a floor polish composition, which method comprises                  
               using in the floor polish composition an aqueous                       
               suspension or dispersion of a water-insoluble polymer                  
               of ethylenically unsaturated monomers, said polymer                    
               having a Tg of at least 35°C and comprising 25% to 65%                 
               by weight units of IBMA and BMA, and 3% to 50% by                      
               weight units of at least one acidic monomer.                           
               The examiner relies on the following prior art reference as            
          evidence of unpatentability:                                                
          Anton et al.                 5,798,426           Aug. 25, 1998             
               (Anton)             (effective filing date May  10, 1996)              
               Claims 1 through 10 on appeal stand rejected under 35                  
          U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anton.  (Final Office                  


                                                                                     
          purposes of this appeal.  We note, however, that the amendment              
          has not been clerically entered.                                            
                                          2                                           


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007