Appeal 2006-2263
Application 09/859,665
Regarding the § 102(e) rejection over Hamilton, Appellants argue
independent method claim 15. Accordingly, we address Appellants’
arguments regarding the rejection of claim 15 in our determination of the
propriety of the § 102(e) rejection over Hamilton.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION OVER BLANEY
The Examiner cites to column 6, line 38 of Blaney as disclosing
chitosan as a “gelling agent” (Answer 3). The Examiner contends that
chitosan is naturally water-soluble (Answer 6), such that Blaney discloses
the treatment chemistry used in her absorbent product is a “water-soluble
gelling agent” as claimed by Appellants.
Appellants’ only argued distinction is that Blaney fails to disclose a
“water-soluble” gelling agent as claimed (Br. 4). Specifically, Appellants
argue that Blaney discloses using chitosan as a “superabsorbent material”
and that Blaney further defines “superabsorbent material” as being “water-
insoluble” (Br. 4-5).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection over Blaney.
Blaney defines “superabsorbent materials” as being “water-swellable,
water-insoluble organic and inorganic material” (Blaney, col. 6, ll. 11-15).
Blaney indicates that “superabsorbent materials” may include, for example,
“ . . . natural and modified natural polymers, such as. . . chitosan” (Blaney,
col. 6, ll. 35-40). Hence, in the context of the Blaney patent, chitosan may
be modified and is “water-insoluble.”
Based on the foregoing disclosure, we agree with Appellants that
Blaney fails to teach that chitosan, as used by Blaney in her absorbent
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013