Appeal No. 2004-0276
Application No. 09/787,438
40 to 100 wt% of at least one (meth)acrylate copolymer (1) which
comprises 93 to 98 wt% of radically polymerized C1 to C4 alkyl esters of acrylic
or methacrylic acids and 7 to 2 wt% of (meth)acrylate monomers with a
quaternary ammonium group in the alkyl radical, and optionally
1 to 60 wt% of at least one (meth)acrylate copolymer (2), different from
(meth)acrylate copolymer (1), and which comprises 85 to 100 wt% of radically
polymerized C1 to C4 alkyl esters of acrylic or methacrylic acid and up to 15 wt%
of (meth)acrylate monomers with basic groups or acid groups in the alkyl radical.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Noda et al. (Noda) 5,137,733 Aug. 11, 1992
Savastano et al (Savastano) 5,681,584 Oct. 28, 1998
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 2-15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for obviousness over
Noda.
Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for obviousness over Noda
in view of Savastano.
We reverse these rejections.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
Answer for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ Brief
for appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we make the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007