Appeal No. 2003-0941
Application No. 09/797,296
On page 3 of the Brief, appellants state that the claims
stand or fall together. We therefore consider claim 1 in this
appeal, the broadest claim on appeal 37 CFR § 1.192(7) and
(8)(2000).
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Traver in view of McGlothlin or over
Traver and Hatch in view of McGlothlin.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Hatch et al. (Hatch) 2,834,754 May 13, 1958
Traver et al. (Traver) 4,600,436 Jul. 15, 1986
McGlothlin et al. 6,075,073 Jun. 13, 2000
(McGlothlin)
OPINION
I. The Examiner’s Position
As an initial matter, on pages 5-6 of the answer, the
examiner discusses the combination of Traver and Hatch in view
of McGlothin. The examiner basically relies upon Hatch for
teaching that organopolysiloxanes are volatile and for teaching
their removal by gas stripping and kneading. We believe Hatch
is cumulative with respect to the teachings of Traver, and
therefore do not need to discuss this reference in making our
determinations herein.
The examiner states that Traver teaches a process of
preparing emulsions containing aminofunctional silicones.
Answer, page 3. The examiner states that Traver teaches that
the principal starting material could be a cyclic polysiloxane
or a linear diorganosiloxane that is derived from a cyclic
polysiloxanes. Traver prefers the cyclic polysiloxane,
octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane. The examiner states that the
cyclic polysiloxane such as octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, are
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007