Appeal No. 1999-0989 8
Application No. 08/265,267
As to claims 24 and 27, we conclude that the disclosure of “granular elastomeric
material” and the synthetic wax available in “solid particulate form,” in and of itself is
insufficient to meet the requirement of claims 24 and 27. The examiner has not met the
burden of showing the size or shape of the entire composition. Furthermore, the examiner
has not shown that either the size or shape is a result effective variable. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 24 and 27.
The Rejection of Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 21 over Gabrick in view of Winkler
The examiner relies upon Winkler for its teaching of “removing oil from a
contaminated medium with a foamed polystyrene-butadiene oil adsorbent.” See Answer,
page 4. The examiner concludes that, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the foamed polystyrene-
butadiene of Winkler for the elastomeric copolymer of the primary reference.” Id. We
disagree.
We find that Winkler is directed to a composition for the recovery of oil from an
aqueous surface. See Abstract and column 1, lines 6-9. We find that the compositions
utilized comprise particulate expanded polystyrene and polystyrene-butadiene which is
understood to be a copolymer of styrene and butadiene. We further find that in addition
or instead of butadiene, ethylene, propylene, and butylene can be copolymerized with
styrene. See column 2, lines 5-7. Moreover, the appellant admits on the record that the
copolymers of Winkler are elastomeric. See Brief, page 11. The examiner relies upon this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007