Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 6
Application No. 10/250,412
charged polyelectrolyte, predominantly positively charged polyelectrolyte and a
water/Portland cement ratio in appellants’ [sic] claimed range which leads to an
increase in viscosity of the cement mixture.” Id. at page 7(citation omitted).
We do not agree that Izumi ‘807 meets the limitation in claims 27 and 54-56
requiring the cementitious mixture to contain “a predominantly positively-charged
polyelectrolyte.”
In addressing this limitation, the examiner points out that Izumi ‘807 teaches that
the disclosed cementitious mixtures may contain a “thickening accelerator” which “can
be at least one member selected from the group consisting of an anionic, a cationic, an
ampholytic and a non-ionic surfactant (see claim 3 in column 12).” Answer, page 5
(emphases in original). The examiner notes that “Izumi teaches their cationic
surfactants can be compounds such as alkyltrimethylammonium chlorides,
alkylbenzyldimeth[y]lammonium chlorides, and alkylamine acetates (col. 4, lines 18-
20).” Id. at page 6.
The examiner also urges that while Appellant’s specification discloses at page 4
that the preferred polyelectrolytes are water soluble polymers, the claims do not require
the polyelectrolytes to be polymeric, because “it is improper to read the limitations of the
specification into the claims.” Answer, page 6. Thus, urges the examiner, “the
polyelectrolytes can be inclusive of other polyelectrolytes such as those within the
teaching of Izumi that may not be water soluble polymers.” Id.
However, contrary to the examiner’s argument, claim 27 explicitly requires the
polyelectrolyte to be polymeric by requiring it to comprise a “positively-charged repeat
unit.” Moreover, although claims 54-56 do not use the term “repeat unit,” they do recite
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013