Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 8
Application No. 10/250,412
claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the
claim.”).
Because Izumi ‘807 does not describe an aqueous cementitious mixture
comprising a predominantly positively charged polyelectrolyte and a predominantly
negatively charged polyelectrolyte, it does not anticipate claims 27 and 54-56, or their
dependent claims.
In rejecting the claims over Nadolsky, the examiner states that “[i]t is because
Nadolsky teaches adding a cationic polymer and potentially an anionic surfactant that
Nadolsky anticipates the instantly claimed invention. Nadolsky does not limit his
addition of an anionic surfactant to only cleaning compositions because anionic
surfactants are notoriously known conventional cement additive[s].” Answer, pages 7-8.
We do not agree that Nadolsky meets the limitation requiring the cementitious
mixture to contain a predominantly negatively charged polyelectrolyte.
We note that Nadolsky discloses the use of polyquaternary compounds
combined with smectite clays as thickening agents for aqueous compositions including
“concrete additives,” and that “these complexes could serve to decrease the concrete’s
density and prolong the drying time, thus decreasing the tendency to form cracks.”
Nadolsky, column 5, lines 17-27. We also note that Nadolsky discloses that the
polycationic thickening agents, “together with an anionic . . . detergent . . . may be
employed in cleansing compositions such as shampoos and cleansing creams and
lotions, for example, skin care creams, liquid soaps and facial makeup removal lotions.”
Nadolsky, column 9, lines 61-66.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013