Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909
additives”, examples which are set forth at column 11, at lines
5-12, which include cationic, anionic or nonionic surfactants,
and mildew proofing agents.
In view of the aforementioned disclosure of Tsutsumi, we
find that Tsutsumi generates a latex by the polymerization of a
mixture of olefinic monomers, wherein at least one of olefinic
monomers is an anionic sulfonate monomer satisfying the formula
set forth of appellants’ claim 8 (and therefore also claims 9,
10, 11, 13, and 14, as explained, supra, in sections II, III, and
IV, of this decision, further discussed below).
In view of the above, we affirm this rejection.
X. The rejection of claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tsutsumi in view of either Puschak or Villiger
Our analysis for this rejection is based upon the same
interpretation of claim 9 discussed in section II of this
decision. Based upon this interpretation, we find that Tsutsumi
makes obvious the subject matter of claim 9. Hence, we affirm
the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 16, our comments are also the same in
connection with the other rejection of claim 16 involving the
reference of Collins, discussed in section II of this decision.
In view of these comments, we reverse the rejection of claim 16.
XI. The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Tsutsumi in view of Lundberg
Our analysis for this rejection is based upon the same
interpretation of claims 10 and 11 made in section III of this
decision, and we therefore affirm this rejection in view of
Tsutsumi alone.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007