Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909
Appellants state that this process is different from the process
set forth in their claim 1.
On page 19 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states
that Latex Example 4 at columns 12-13 and Ink Example 9 at column
15, of Collins, indicate that polymerization occurs in the
presence of a mixture of nonionic surfactant and anionic
surfactants. On page 20 of the answer, the examiner states that
Latex Example 4 of Collins clearly meets the latex in the present
claims.
On page 20 of the answer, the examiner further states that
column 4 at lines 52-54 of Collins indicates that the ink
comprises a mixture of PPAE latex and acetoacetoxy-functional
polymer which is formed by reacting a mixture of olefinic
monomers in the presence of nonionic surfactants and anionic
surfactants (column 5, line 17-21 and 43-45, and column 6, lines
31-35 of Collins). The examiner states that thus it is clear
that Collins discloses the same latex as claimed by appellants.
Upon our review of Collins, we provide the following
comments.
Latex Example 4 described at columns 12 and 13 of Collins
sets forth a process wherein a latex is generated by the
polymerization of a mixture of olefinic monomers in the presence
of an anionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant. Hence, we
agree with the examiner’s comments made at the bottom of page 19
of the answer.
Ink Example 9 described in column 15 of Collins indicates
that the latex from Example 4 is then mixed with water and a
pigment. This disclosure therefore satisfies the aspect of
appellants’ claim 1 in connection with mixing an ink vehicle and
colorant with the latex.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007