Ex Parte Schlenoff - Page 13


            Appeal No. 2006-2413                                                       Page 13              
            Application No. 10/250,412                                                                      

            where Izumi ‘807 discloses that it would have been suitable or desirable to have                
            substituted the predominantly positively charged polyelectrolytes required by the claims        
            for the single charge monomeric surfactants disclosed by Izumi ‘807.  Because Izumi             
            ‘807 discloses only monomeric compounds as cationic surfactant thickening agents, the           
            disclosure that the thickening agents may have a molecular weight of “at most 5,000”            
            would not, in our view, have led the skilled artisan to have used positively charged            
            polyelectrolytes in the disclosed cementitious mixtures.                                        
                   Moreover, we do not see, and the examiner does not indicate, where either Izumi          
            ‘316 or Burge teaches or suggests the suitability or desirability of including a                
            predominantly positively charged polyelectrolyte in the aqueous cementitious mixtures           
            of Izumi ‘807.  Therefore, in our view, the examiner has not made out a case of prima           
            facie obviousness based on Izumi ‘807, even when viewed in light of Izumi ‘316 and              
            Burge.  We reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3-19, 21-23, 25-40, and 52-56            
            over Izumi ‘807, including the combination of Izumi ‘807 with Izumi ‘316 and Burge.             
                   In rejecting the claims over Nadolsky, the examiner points out that “it is also old      
            in the art to add a surfactant to a concrete/cement composition because it is also a            
            conventional additive (see, for example, Izumi et al. 5,674,316, [sic, column 6?]               
            lines 26-36).”  Answer, page 7.  Thus, urges the examiner, “[e]ven if not anticipated, it       
            would have at least been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it[’]s old to      
            use an anionic surfactant . . . as a conventional additive in a thickening agent additive to    
            increase the viscosity of aqueous systems such as cement/concrete.”   Id. at page 8.            
                   The examiner summarizes his position by stating that “the addition of                    
            conventional additives to cement can contain a negative charge and fall into the                




Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013