Appeal No. 2005-1087
Application No. 10/175,587
On the record before us, the appealed claim 11 description
of the here claimed shell as being a “micelle” shell is the one
and only claim feature urged by the appellants as distinguishing
from the respective compositions of the applied Chopra patents.
In this regard, it is the appellants’ position that “[t]he two
documents [i.e., Chopra ‘870 and Chopra ‘025] describe
microcapsules with a complex coacervation induced shell, but such
a shell is different from a micelle shell” (brief, page 3). With
further regard to this matter, the appellants point out that
their specification discloses a process for fabricating a micelle
shell which employs an amphiphile and that the applied Chopra
patents contain no disclosure of such a process involving an
amphiphile. The appellants’ position lacks persuasive merit.
The independent claim on appeal contains no limitations
relative to the manner in which the here claimed micelle shell
has been fabricated and thus is not limited to a micelle shell
fabricated via the process involving amphiphiles disclosed in the
subject specification. On the other hand, commonly accepted
definitions of the terms “coacervate” and “micelle” support the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007