Appeal No. 2003-0941
Application No. 09/797,296
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
have removed the cyclic polysiloxanes from the polymerized
silicon polymer emulsions of Traver, by contacting the emulsion
with the pervaporation membrane of McGlothlin because McGlothlin
teaches that the pervaporation membrane method eliminates the
drawbacks known to exist in conventional separation methods.
Answer, page 5.
II. Appellants’ Position
Applicants state that each of the applied references are
discussed in the specification, and as noted in the
specification, appellants state that Traver does not disclose
pervaporation, Hatch does not teach stripping emulsions nor
pervaporation, and McGlothlin fails to disclose pervaporation
for removing volatile siloxanes from emulsions containing
siloxane polymers. Brief, page 4.
Further, appellants argue that the unexpected results of
their invention are that the viscosity of polysiloxanes is
better controlled, as compared to Traver’s technique, and no
foam control is required in comparison to the technique used in
Traver. Brief, page 4.
Applicants further argue that their technique provides
improvement in the amount of volatile siloxanes which can be
removed from an emulsion, as compared to the amount of volatile
siloxanes removed in example 11 of Traver (we find that Example
11 of Traver removes about 6% of the volatiles). The amount
removed according to appellants’ technique is 26%, 54%, and 38%,
respectively, as shown in appellants’ Tables 1-3. Brief, page
4.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007