Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909
We are mindful of appellants’ comments regarding the
preparation of the SAAP and the PPAE. However, as stated by the
examiner on page 20 of the answer, Collins, at column 4 beginning
at line 52, states that another preferred ink composition
contains a pigment and a mixture of PPAE latex and an
acetoacetoxy-functional polymer latex (SAAP). Also, we refer to
column 6, beginning at line 31 of Collins, which discloses that
the ionic sulfonate monomer and other stabilizing monomers may be
incorporated into the SAAP. Hence, in fact, the acetoacetoxy-
functional polymer (SAAP) is polymerized in the presence of
olefinic monomers and also in the presence of an ionic sulfonate
monomer.
In view of the above, we find that Collins does anticipate
claims 1-8, 12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 41, and 43. We note
that appellants do not argue the other claims in connection with
this anticipation rejection, and therefore we need only consider
the patentability of separate claims to the extent that
appellants argue them. Hence, in this rejection, appellants only
argue claim 1 and we therefore only need to consider claim 1. We
do note that with respect to claim 8, the sodium 2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropane sulfonate disclosed in column 6 at lines 31-34 of
Collins anticipates the formula set forth therein.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm this rejection.
II. The rejection of claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collins in view of either Puschak or
Villiger
We note that claim 9 depends on claim 8. Claim 9 recites
“wherein m is zero, or 1.” Hence, m can have the value of 1 in
claim 9. Collins meets the requirement of claim 9 when m is 1,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007