Appeal 2006-2913
Application 10/072,402
We will also sustain the Examiner’s Section 103 rejection of all the appealed
claims over Rodrigues. The sole argument advanced by Appellant with respect to
the Section 103 rejection over Rodrigues is that “Rodrigues is like Arfaei in that it
comprises a polyglycol backbone having an –(O-R)-repeating unit (col. 4, lines 25-
35)” (Br. 8, ¶3). However, for the reasons set forth above, it is our view that claim
21 does not preclude graft copolymers having a polyglycol backbone.
Furthermore, as explained by the Examiner, Rodrigues expressly discloses that
“[t]he polyglycol can also be an alcohol ethoxylate” (col. 4, l. 14), the same species
recited in claim 24 on appeal. We note that Appellant has not refuted this
reference citation by the Examiner in the Reply Brief. Also, Rodrigues’ disclosure
that the polyglycol can be an alcohol ethoxylate undermines Appellant’s argument
that the polyglycol backbone of Arfaei cannot include an alcohol ethoxylate.
As a final point with respect to the Section 103 rejections, we note that
Appellant bases no arguments upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007