Appeal No. 2004-1869
Application No. 09/738,591
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 to require coating an outer surface of the plurality of polar
particulates.
The Examiner finds that Bentley and Kaneko are silent towards coating the outer surface
of the polar silica particulates (Answer, p. 6). The Examiner cites Linford for its teaching of
applying a polymer coating to silica particulates as a coupling agent when embedding the
particulates in a polymer or plastic to prevent de-bonding (Answer, p. 6).
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to employ an adhesive polymer coating in the
combination of Bentley and Kaneko in order to adhere the silica particulates to the polymer film
because Kaneko teaches applying the silica particulates to the film as a solution (Brief, p. 5;
Reply Brief, p. 2). As discussed above in relation to claim 5, Applicant does not address the
finding of the Examiner with regard to Kaneko that the silica particulates can be applied in any
convenient manner including as a powder (Answer, p. 10). Appellant again fails to convince us
of reversible error on the part of the Examiner.
Appellant further argues that the silica particulates taught in Kaneko form a hydrophilic
surface and that if the silica particulates are coated then the surface would no longer be
hydrophilic and the effect of increased wettability would be lost (Answer, pp. 5-6). It is noted
that the specification teaches using a surface treatment (coating) for the particulates either to
enhance adhesion of the particulates to the polymer film or to enhance wettability and that any
coating can be utilized to enhance adhesion or wettability (page 6, lines 4-9). Appellant provides
no guidance in choosing what type of coating to apply other than to use maleic anhydride when
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007