Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909
XII. The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Tsutsumi in view of Beach
Our analysis for this rejection is based upon the same
interpretation of claims 13 and 14 made in section IV of this
decision, and based upon this interpretation, we affirm this
rejection in view of Tsutsumi alone.
XIII. The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Tsutsumi in view of Collins or Patel
Claim 19 recites wherein the anionic surfactant is sodium
dodecyl sulfate, etc., and the nonionic surfactant is polvinyl
alcohol, polyacrylic acid, etc., and wherein the anionic
surfactant and the nonionic surfactant are in certain amounts.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the anionic surfactant is sodium
dodecyl sulfate,” etc., and recites the same kinds of anionic
surfactants as recited in claim 19.
In column 9 beginning at line 39, Tsutsumi indicates that
surfactants can be added and these can be anionic surfactants and
cationic surfactants. The examiner relies upon Collins or Patel
for teaching the particularly claimed anionic surfactant and
nonionic surfactant. On page 15 of the answer, the examiner
states that Patel discloses the use of anionic surfactants as
stabilizers and that Collins discloses the use of nonionic
surfactants as emulsifiers used in polymerizing a latex. The
examiner states that it would have been obvious to utilize the
specifically disclosed anionic surfactants and nonionic
surfactants in Patel or Collins in the process of Tsutsumi to
arrive at appellants’ claimed invention in order to effectively
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007