Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 9
Application No. 10/250,412
However, while the genus “anionic . . . detergent” (Nadolsky, column 9, lines 62-
63), may encompass some predominantly negatively charged polyelectrolytes, it also
encompasses a large number of other possible compounds. Therefore, in our view, the
examiner has not adequately explained how Nadolsky’s “anionic detergent” genus
would have suggested the predominantly negatively charged polyelectrolyte recited in
claims 27 and 54-56.
Moreover, Nadolsky discloses that the anionic surfactant can be combined with
the polyquaternary thickening agent in personal care compositions, not cementitious
compositions. The fact that “anionic surfactants are notoriously known conventional
cement additive[s]” (Answer, page 8) does not amount to a disclosure in Nadolsky
describing the use of a predominantly negatively charged polyelectrolyte in a
cementitious mixture. As noted supra, for a reference to anticipate, “every limitation of a
claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference.” Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1457,
43 USPQ2d at 1032.
To summarize, because Nadolsky does not describe a cementitious mixture
comprising a predominantly negatively charged polyelectrolyte, Nadolsky does not
anticipate claims 27 and 54-56, or their dependent claims.
In rejecting the claims as being anticipated by Pomerhn, the examiner states that
“Pomerhn anticipates the . . . claimed invention because he adds a cationic
polyelectrolyte and anionic polyelectrolyte which leads to an increase in viscosity of the
cement slurry.” Answer, page 9. The examiner concedes, however, that “Pomerhn
may potentially not anticipate” the claims because it does not describe the claimed
water to Portland cement ratio. Id.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013