Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909
VIII. The rejection of claims 25 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Collins
On page 11 of the answer, the examiner states that Collins
fails to exemplify the specific polymers in the claims of this
rejection. The examiner states that, nevertheless, in light of
the overlap between the monomers used to obtain the polymer, and
the corresponding monomers disclosed by Collins, it would have
been within the bounds of routine experimentation, to use a
specific polymer to arrive at the particularly claimed polymers.
On page 11 of the brief, appellants respond and state that
Collins does not render the claims of the present application
obvious, but does not set forth in any detail reasons in support
thereof.
We find that, for example, claim 25 requires the formation,
subsequent to polymerization, of a particular kind of polymer
recited therein. We find that Collins provides for the formation
of a polymer made from a monomer, such as a butyl acrylate, and a
ionic sulfonate monomer, such as sodium 2-acrylamido-2-methyl-
propane sulfonate, and styrene, and therefore this would result
in a polymer of, for example, 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane
sulfonate/styrene/butyl acrylate recited in claim 25. See column
6, line 11, line 14, and line 32 of Collins. Hence, we find that
Collins satisfies claim 25 in this regard. Collins also
satisfies claim 34 in connection with the claimed polymer, poly
(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-
acrylic acid). Likewise, the same for claims 35 and 36.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm this rejection.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007