Appeal No. 2001-1966
Application 09/140,846
4, line 22. The subsequent discussion does not lead us to
conclude that this material is a suspending fluid as in claim 1
on appeal. The corresponding discussion of films beginning at
column 9, line 40 does not aid us in reaching a sufficient
resolution of this issue as well.
As to claim 30, following a corresponding analysis just made
with respect to claim 1, we conclude that the combination of Saxe
and Chang does not lead us to the claimed "second capsule in a
binder" as recited at the end of claim 30 on appeal. Although
the claimed dispensing fluid of independent claim 1 is not
recited in claim 30, the examiner's analysis appears to correlate
the claimed first capsules in claim 30 with the particles 21 of
Saxe which are in turn believed by the examiner to have been
obvious to the artisan to have been embodied in the double
encapsulated particles 1 of Chang. The examiner's analysis in
the Answer does not correlate any particular element between the
two references to the claimed binder. Following the examiner's
analysis and apparent correlation with the subject matter of
claim 1, it is not clear what the claimed liquid is to comprise.
The two resins of Chang are not necessarily liquids to the extent
we noted earlier in this opinion.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007