Appeal No. 2001-1384
Application No. 08/726,229
microemulsion mixtures but merely not labeled as such. The
examiner contends that while Ahn calls the particle solution a
“colloidal dispersion” [column 4, lines 36+] and Cathey calls the
solution a “colloidal silica slurry” [column 3, lines 29+], that
a microemulsion is a colloidal solution and that, therefore, the
claimed “microemulsion mixture” is taught by either one of Ahn or
Cathey.
While a microemulsion might be a colloidal solution and
vice-versa, it would appear to us that the size of the particles
in the mixture or solution would dictate whether a mixture is a
“microemulsion.” In view of no apparent denial by appellants
that, as alleged by the examiner, the colloidal solutions of Ahn
and Cathey are, in fact, “microemulsion” mixtures, we find that
these primary references do suggest such a “microemulsion
mixture,” as claimed.
Appellants’ argument goes a step farther in contending that
neither Ahn nor Cathey teaches the claimed “precipitating” step.
Thus, even if Ahn’s mixture of particles in a “colloidal
dispersion” and if Cathey’s mixture of particles in a “colloidal
silica slurry” may be considered microemulsion mixtures, neither
reference suggests the precipitation of these particles in a
microemulsion mixture, as claimed. We agree with appellants.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007