Appeal 2006-1219
Application 10/636,148
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.].
Appellants argue that “Meitzner . . . teaches use of a minimum
crosslinker level of 4 to 6%, with a maximum of 25% (Col. 5, lines 20-30)
[and that] Meitzner fails to suggest, or even to mention any crosslinker level
below 4%”1 (Br. 5). Appellants further argue:
Meitzner's general disclosure that varying
crosslinking will result in a change in properties
hardly amounts to a suggestion of the specific
range ''from 0.5 mole percent to 2 mole percent
crosslinker," much less a suggestion even to vary
properties in a direction that could result in
Applicants' invention. Meitzner contains no
guidance as to the optimum ranges of crosslinker
that would achieve the beads claimed by
Applicants; rather, the disclosure is, at most, an
invitation to experiment with crosslinker level
[id.].
In the “Response to Argument” section of the Answer, the Examiner
replies:
[I]t is clearly within the capabilities and very basic
skills of an ordinary polymer chemist [to vary the
amount of crosslinker] in order to modify the final
physical properties of the resulting polymer in a
known and predictable way, absent showing of
1 We note that the claim refers to the amounts of crosslinker used as based
on mole percent while Meitzner’s amounts are based on weight percent (col.
10. ll. 14-21). In reviewing the record, we find no attempt by the Examiner
to convert Meitzner’s weight percent to mole percent for a proper
comparison of the amounts.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007