Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 7
Application No. 10/250,412
“polyelectrolytes.” As discussed supra, the term “polyelectrolyte” is defined in the
specification and understood in the art to mean a polymer having a charged repeat unit;
i.e., having more than one ionic group. In our view, because they are not polymeric and
have only a single positive charge, the cationic surfactants listed by Izumi ‘807 do not
meet the limitation in claims 27 and 54-56 requiring “a predominantly positively-charged
polyelectrolyte” in the cementitious mixture. In addition, the examiner has not pointed to
any composition disclosed by Izumi ‘807 that contains both a positively charged
polyelectrolyte and a negatively charged polylelectrolyte, as required by claims 27 and
54-56.
The examiner points out that “Izumi can include water soluble polymers of
negative or positive charge (anionic or cationic) because he teaches up to a molecular
weight of 5000 for his cationic and anionic surfactants.” Answer, page 6. We note that
Izumi ‘807 states at column 4, lines 6-9, that “any of anionic, cationic, ampholytic and
nonionic surfactants can be used as the thickening accelerator having a weight-average
molecular weight of at most 5,000.”
However, while Izumi ‘807 lists a number of polymeric surfactants which can be
used as thickening accelerators, none of the cationic surfactants in that list are
polymeric. See Izumi ‘807, column 4, lines 6-28. Further, there is no disclosure of a
surfactant with charged repeat units. Thus, taken in context, Izumi ‘807’s molecular
weight limitation on the surfactant component of the cementitious mixture does not
adequately describe a predominantly positively charged polyelectrolyte, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43
USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013