Appeal 2007-0105
Application 10/698,607
Claims 6 and 24 illustrate Appellant’s invention of a method of
preparing amphipathic polymer particles, and are representative of the
claims on appeal:
6. A method of preparing amphipathic polymer particles comprising
the steps of:
admixing an aqueous carrier, an unsaturated monomer containing a
hydrophobic moiety, an unsaturated monomer containing a convertible
moiety in hydrophobic form, and a surfactant to form an emulsion;
initiating a polymerization by adding a catalyst to the emulsion,
continuing polymerization at a temperature and for a period of time
sufficient to form amphipathic polymer particles,
wherein the amphipathic polymer particles have a size range of
50-500 mm.
24. The method of claim 6, further comprising the step of converting
the convertible moiety to a hydrophilic form after the amphipathic polymer
particles are formed.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Winnik US 4,795,794 Jan. 3, 1989
Idogawa US 5,942,560 Aug. 24, 1999
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection all
advanced on appeal (Br. 8):
claims 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Idogawa
(Answer 3-4);
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Idogawa as
applied to claims 6, 9, and 10 in view of Winnik (id. 4-5); and
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Idogawa as applied
to claims 6, 9, and 10 (id. 5-6)
Appellant argues the claims in the first and the second grounds of
rejection as a group with the arguments with respect to both grounds
focusing on the limitations of independent claim 6 (Br. 14-21). Thus, we
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013