Ex Parte Klauck et al - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2006-1931                                                                                            
              Application No. 10/305,201                                                                                      
              THE REJECTION OVER GB '7386, 7                                                                                  
                      The Examiner asserts that GB >738 discloses the reaction product of styrene-modified                    
              soybean oil fatty acid methyl ester and ethylene diamine having a molecular weight as high as                   
              5000.  (Answer, pp. 4 and 5).  GB >738 discloses that reaction product can be used in adhesives                 
              and coatings.  (Page 1, line 46).  According to Appellants= specification, page 8, an example of a              
              fatty compound corresponding to component (A) includes fats and oils in native form, i.e.,                      
              soybean oil.  The specification also discloses the reaction of components (A) and (B) results in                
              the polymer formation by polyaddition reactions and polycondensations reactions.  (Page 10).                    
              The invention of GB >738 differs from the claimed invention in that the adhesives and coatings                  
              are not disclosed as aqueous.  EP '467 discloses that the polycondensation reaction products are                
              suitable for formation of aqueous adhesive compositions.  Thus, the claimed invention is                        
              rendered prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of GB >738 and EP '467.                                 
                      Appellants acknowledge that GB >738 is directed to a composition that is similar to the                 
              claimed invention.  However, Appellants argue the composition of GB >738 is not taught or                       
              suggested to be dispersible or soluble in water because the reaction product does not have any                  
              solubilizing groups.  (Brief, pp. 7 and 8).  We are not persuaded by Appellants= argument.  First,              
              Appellants have not disputed that the reaction product cited by the Examiner does meet the                      
              requirements of components A and B of the claimed invention.  The Examiner has asserted the                     


                                                                                                                             
              6  We select claim 16 as representative of the rejected claims 16 to 18 and 21 to 32.                           
              7  To the extent that the Examiner has rejected claims 16 to 34 and 43 over GB '738 alone, we reverse this rejection.
              The Examiner (Answer, page 8) recognizes that GB '738 does not disclose an aqueous dispersion.  As such, this   
              reference alone does not render the claimed subject matter obvious.                                             
                                                             -6-                                                              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007