Appeal No.2003-0078 Page 11
Application No.09/257,066
claim 11 for the reasons discussed above with respect to the
teachings of Falk ‘967 alone and for the additional reasons set
forth by the examiner in the answer.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to liquid foam stability
are noted but not found persuasive since representative claim 1
and separately argued claim 11 do not specify any particular
degree of foam stability. The combination of the amphoteric
surfactants is explicitly suggested by Falk ‘967. Moreover,
Barbarin discloses that an AFFF composition can include
amphoteric fluorine containing surfactants (column 2, lines 52-
57), including mixtures thereof (column 3, lines 40 and 41), as
well as other non-fluorinated amphoteric surfactants (column 5,
lines 1-7 and 13-16). Falk ‘967 and Pennartz both teach that
ammonium compounds may be added to AFFF compositions, Falk ‘967
for use as an electrolyte and Pennartz for use to retard
flammability. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above and
in the answer, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007