Appeal 2006-2350
Application 10/444,104
claims. Claims 24 further limits claim 19 to polyacrylates having a number
average molecular weight of about 2,000 to about 90,000, a very large range.
Appellants argue that there is no teaching in the prior art that a
number average molecular weight in the claimed range should be preferred.
They also argue that the prior art provides no basis for deducing that this
range should be preferred (Br. 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Once one of ordinary
skill in the art knew to select a polyacrylate salt as the dispersant, the
particular polyacrylate salt chosen and its number average molecular weight
would be determined based upon knowledge within the art and/or through
routine experimentation.
Group C, Claims 26 and 35-38
For group C we select claim 26 to represent the issues on appeal.
Claim 26 further narrows the polyacrylate molecular weight requirement to
about 4,000 to about 10,000. Appellants’ argument is the same as that for
group B. We are not persuaded for the reasons stated above with regard to
group B.
Group D, Claim 29
Claim 29 is directed to the method of claim 27 wherein the calcium
compound is CaCO3, i.e., calcium carbonate. The Examiner acknowledges
that Uchino 978 does not disclose calcium carbonate as an anti-solidification
agent. The Examiner, however, concludes that the use of calcium carbonate
would have been obvious because “the references clearly make mention of
calcium containing compounds and this makes the claimed species obvious
because a generic disclosure renders a claimed species prima facie obvious.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013