Appeal 2006-1219
Application 10/636,148
produce beads whose voids are . . . microscopic in size . . .” (Answer 3).
The Examiner notes that “[w]hile the amount of divinylbenzene (DVB)
monomer employed in the preferred embodiments is higher than the claimed
amount of DVB . . . , [Meitzner] expressly teaches in column 7, lines 56 et
seq. that it is well known in the art that degree of crosslinking, which is
governed by the amount of crosslinker, ‘has a profound effect [o]n the
physical properties of the product’” (id.). The Examiner contends that “it is
notoriously well known in the art that a wide variety of physical properties
of a polymer will greatly depend [on the] degree of crosslinking” (id.).
Thus, the Examiner concludes:
While those properties may be undesirable for one
application, it . . . clearly may have advantages for
different applications. Therefore, lowering the
amount of crosslinking agent . . . in the invention
disclosed by Meitzner to the amounts claimed by
applicants, would have been clearly obvious for an
ordinary artisan to achieve desired physical
properties of a polymer depending of [sic, on] its
end use since it is notoriously well known on [sic,
in] the art that varying the amount of crosslinker
"has a profound effect [o]n the physical properties
of the product" [id.].
With respect to the claim limitation of the polymeric bead having “no
void spaces having a diameter greater than 5 µm,” the Examiner notes that
Meitzner “expressly discloses that it is well known in the art [ ]that all
crosslinked polymers contain micropores” (Answer 4). According to the
Examiner, Meitzner is directed to the “creation of microc[h]annels within
the beads by adding a porogen or a precipitant” (id.). The Examiner
contends that Meitzner teaches “that addition of the precipitant will result[ ]
in creation of additional microchannels that will result in [a] decrease of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007