Appeal No. 2001-1966
Application 09/140,846
dispersed in a suspending fluid and that these particles contain
a liquid.
It is not clear to us that the first resin 3 and the second
resin 7 of the double encapsulated particle 1 in Chang is or
comprises a fluid or liquid. The examiner's reliance upon column
5, lines 22-45 is, in our view, misplaced. The nature of the
various resins discussed here as well as the fact that both first
and second resins may be soluble in a liquid is not dispositive
that they are or that the particles 1 may be suspended in a fluid
or liquid. The mere solubility of the same resin having
different molecular weights in a liquid medium does not
necessarily argue that the resins themselves are liquids or
otherwise fluids for purposes of combinability with Saxe and in
meeting the limitations of the "suspending fluid" of claim 1 on
appeal. At best we would have to speculate as to whether the
resins are or comprise a fluid or liquid. Thus, even if we were
to agree that it would have been obvious for the artisan to have
combined Saxe and Chang, the subject matter of independent claim
1 on appeal in its entirety would not have been met.
As to claim 1, we note also that the nature of the film 24
in representative Figure 5 of Saxe is in the form of a cross-
linked polymeric matrix material as discussed beginning at column
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007