Appeal No. 1999-0203
Application No. 08/399,384
The examiner finds that Knoerzer teaches a polymeric film
produced by coating a polymeric substrate with PVOH, melamine-
formaldehyde crosslinking agent and a sulfuric acid catalyst
(Answer, page 5). The examiner further finds that Knoerzer
teaches the use of nitric acid as a cross-linking promoting
catalyst, although it is “inferior” to sulfuric acid (id.). The
examiner’s conclusion is recited on page 6 of the Answer as
follows:
The Examiner has a reasonable basis for believing that
the pH of the solution of Knoerger [sic, Knoerzer] may
very well meet the claimed pH limitation since both
nitric acid and sulfuric acid are strong acids of
equivalent strength and since one of ordinary skill in
the art would more than likely use the nitric acid in
the same content as the sulfuric acid used at col. 4,
lines 1-15 [of Knoerzer] and given that the sulfuric
acid is a strong acid such would presumably provide a
pH falling within the scope of the claims.
As correctly argued by appellant on page 6 of the Brief and
page 3 of the Reply Brief, it is well settled that every
limitation of the claimed subject matter must be described,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, by the
reference to support a rejection under section 102. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
According to the examiner’s analysis, one of ordinary skill in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007