Appeal No. 2005-0151
Application No. 09/615,305
and tri-block copolymers are added to the surface of the lamellar vesicles in ranges
from 0.1-10%, the viscosity of concentrated dispersions of cationic softener actives
therein is reduced, and the stabilizing properties of the fabric softening compositions are
improved. Id., col. 2, lines 9-13 and lines 25-35; col. 3, lines 57-59. Thus, we find that
the vesicles taught by Pluyter are not formed from tri-block co-polymers of the ABA type
as required by the claims, but are simply positively-charged bilayers to which no more
than 10% of a block tripolymer has been added.
Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
II. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
The examiner argues that claims 1, 10, 12, 17 and 19 are anticipated by the
teachings of Martin with respect to liposomes made from triblock polymers. Answer,
p. 5. The examiner relies on the teachings of the abstract, the figures, the examples,
and the claims, for support. We find the examiner’s arguments unpersuasive.
This rejection fails for the same reason as above. That is, the examiner has
construed the claim too broadly and has applied a reference which teaches vesicles
wherein block tripolymers have been attached. As discussed above, the vesicles set
forth in the claims require that the membrane of the vesicles be “formed from” the block
tripolymers. Accordingly, we agree with the appellants that the liposomes disclosed by
Martin have a lipid bilayer membrane [Pluyter, col. 5, lines 10-15]. Brief, p. 4. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007