Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 14
Application No. 10/250,412
category of a negative polyelectrolyte.” Id. at pages 15-16. Thus, the examiner in effect
urges that because surfactants are conventional cement additives, and because some
surfactants are known to have negative charges, one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to add a negatively charged polyelectrolyte to the positively charged
polyelectrolyte-containing concrete compositions disclosed by Nadolsky at column 5,
lines 24-27.
We do not find the examiner’s argument persuasive. The examiner does not
point to, and we do not see, anywhere in Nadolsky or Izumi ‘316 disclosing that a
negatively charged polyelectrolyte is a surfactant conventionally added to aqueous
cementitious mixtures.
We note that at column 6, lines 26-36, Izumi ‘316 includes “surface active
agents” and “other water soluble polymers” among a list of many “cement additives.”
However, Izumi ‘316 does not state that the negatively charged polyelectrolytes recited
in claims 27 and 54-56 are conventional cement additives. Moreover, in reviewing
Nadolsky and Izumi ‘316, we do not see, and the examiner does not point to, anything
suggesting that it would have been suitable or desirable to have included a negatively
charged polyelectrolyte in the positively charged polyelectrolyte-containing concrete
compositions disclosed by Nadolsky.
As pointed out by the examiner (Answer, page 7), Nadolsky discloses (column 9,
lines 62-66) that polycationic thickening agents can be combined “with an anionic . . .
detergent . . . in cleansing compositions such as shampoos and cleansing creams and
lotions, for example, skin care creams, liquid soaps and facial makeup removal lotions.”
Thus, Nadolsky’s sole disclosure of combining a positively charged polyelectrolyte with
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013