Appeal 2006-1219
Application 10/636,148
density and creation of reticular polymeric structure” (id.). The Examiner
concludes:
While such a [microchannel] structure is a desired
feature of the invention disclosed by Meitzner,
elimination of an element along with its function
would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan
when this function[ ] id [sic, is] not desired. The
reference further expressly discloses that polymers
obtained without the porogen exhibit higher
density (see table II), thus providing additional
motivation ot [sic, to] eliminate precipitants.
Lowering DVB amount and eliminating the
precipitant would inherently render the resulting
beads, with the claimed physical characteristics as
obtained by substantially the same process with
substantially the same starting materials. The
burden to show the differences in the claimed
properties was shifted to the applicants, but no
conclusive evidence to the contrary were [sic, was]
ever presented on the record.
The invention as claimed, thus, would have
been obvious for an ordinary artisan from the
teaching of Meitzner [id.].
We note that Appellants argue:
Limitations of independent claims 1, 6 and 10 are
not taught or suggested in Meitzner, namely that
the polymeric bead has: (i) from 0.5 mole percent
to 2 mole percent crosslinker (all claims); (ii) no
void spaces having a diameter greater than 5 µm
(all claims); (iii) a diameter no greater than 200
µm (claim 1); and (iv) less than 5 weight percent
of organic extractables (claim 1) [Br. 5].
We begin with claim 10, directed to “[a] lightly crosslinked polymeric
bead having no void spaces having a diameter greater than 5 µm.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007