Appeal 2006-2913
Application 10/072,402
a graph copolymer within the scope of claim 21, i.e., a graph copolymer having a
hydrophobic backbone selected from either linear hydrocarbons or branched
hydrocarbons, and an amine moiety grafted onto the backbone. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Arfaei does not teach the claimed
hydrophobic backbone because every group in the polyether backbone of the
reference must have the (-O-R-) repeating unit. Claim 21 on appeal does not
preclude the presence of any such groups in the backbone, i.e., the broadly recited
linear and branched hydrocarbons encompass repeating units of –(CH2-CH2-O).
Appellant also maintains that “the amine groups in Arfaei are in the
backbone [whereas] [i]n contrast, the amine groups in the present invention are in
the grafted part or side chain of the molecule” (Br. 6, ¶2). However, as properly
pointed out by the Examiner, Arfaei expressly teaches that amine functional groups
may be grafted as a side chain on the polymer backbone (col. 2, l. 52 et seq.)
Regarding the Section 102 rejection of claim 24 which recites that “the non-
polymeric surfactant is an alcohol ethoxylate,” the dispute between the Examiner
and Appellant concerning Arfaei’s description of an alcohol ethoxylate is not
germane to the claimed subject matter. Claim 24 does not require that the
hydrophobic backbone of claim 21 is an alcohol ethoxylate. Rather, claim 24 only
further limits one of the choices of the Markush group, i.e., non-polymeric
surfactants, to an alcohol ethoxylate. Such a limiting of one of the recited species
does not require that the hydrophobic backbone moiety be an alcohol ethoxylate.
The backbone moiety may still be one of natural polymers, linear hydrocarbons, or
branched hydrocarbons.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007