Appeal No. 2001-0127
Application No. 09/121,636
action, pages 2-3; examiner’s answer of Apr. 10, 2000, paper 12,
pages 2-7.)
We affirm this rejection for the reasons well stated in the
examiner's answer. Nevertheless, we add the following comments
for emphasis.2
As the examiner correctly found (answer, pages 2-3), Anton
describes an acrylic polymer having a Tg of 21-43°C and
containing 30-60% by weight of butyl methacrylate, 20% by weight
of acetoacetoxy ethyl methacrylate, and 10% by weight of acrylic
acid. (Column 1, line 33 to column 2, line 56; column 3, line
52 to column 4, line 32; column 4, lines 61-63; Example 4.)
According to Anton, the polymer may be dispersed in water.
(Column 2, lines 39-56.) Anton also teaches that isobutyl
methacrylate and butyl methacrylate are interchangeable monomers
and suggests that mixtures of ethylenically unsaturated monomers
may be used to provide a polymer having the requisite Tg.
(Column 3, lines 19-46).
Based on Anton's teachings as a whole, we share the
examiner's view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
2 The appellants submit that "claims 1-5 stand or fall as a
group independently from claims 6-10" (appeal brief, p. 5) and
present arguments in support of these two claim groupings. We
therefore confine our discussion to representative claims 1 and
6 for purposes of deciding this appeal, with claims 2-5 standing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007