Appeal No. 2006-1506 Page 9
Application No. 10/858,576
presence of an insoluble polystyrene seed latex and one
formed wherein the polymer is soluble in the polymer
mix. In Applicant’s polymerization employing an
insoluble polymer seed, the seed latex provides a
“core” over which a polymeric shell is formed. On the
other hand a polymer formed in the presence of solution
polymerized polystyrene, as was done in Yang, cannot
provide a “core” and thus there can be no shell because
the solution polymerized polymer is soluble in the
monomer mix. Structurally, then it would be rather
apparent to a polymer chemist that the polymers would
be substantially different and, therefore, would not
have identical properties. Also, a polymer formed in
the presence of a hydrophobic resin, as in Lu et al.,
would be expected to result in a product in which the
hydrophobic resin is separate from the polymer formed
from acrylate and vinyl monomers.
However, that argumentation of counsel in the briefs is not
fairly substantiated with evidence so as to satisfy appellants’
burden to show that the representative product-by process claim 1
actually describes a different product than described in the
applied prior art.
To the extent appellants are arguing that representative
claim 1 is limited to a core/shell polymer based on the process
limitations recited therein and is structurally distinct from the
products taught by the applied references, we agree with the
examiner (answer, pages 6 and 7) that appellants have not
substantiated that argument with persuasive evidence on this
record. In this regard, we note that representative claim 1 does
not explicitly require a core/shell product structure. Nor have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007