Appeal 2007-0105
Application 10/698,607
preferably emulsion-polymerized”” (Br. 13-14 and 16, citing Idogawa col. 4,
ll. 7-11 and 23-27; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant contends “there is no teaching
or suggestion of converting this ‘hydrophilic’ component to hydrophobic
form” (Br. 14 and 15; Reply Br. 4). With respect to Winnik, Appellant
contends that this reference and Idogawa “do not teach or suggest using a
convertible moiety in hydrophobic form as required by claim 6” (id. 18 and
20, original emphasis omitted; Reply Br. 4-5). With respect to claim 24,
Appellant contends Idogawa “fails to teach or suggest the conversion
required in claim 24” because the reference “clearly does not contemplate a
conversion step because after the emulsion polymerization process is
complete, it would already be ‘amphipathic” and “there is no suggestion of
using the pH controllers . . . as a step after formation of dispersed particles”
(Br. 21-22, original emphasis omitted, and Reply Br. 5-6).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1 over Idogawa and whether the
Examiner has established a case of prima facie obviousness over Idogawa
alone with respect to claim 24 and as combined with Winnik with respect to
claim 7.
The plain language of independent claim 6 specifies a method of
preparing amphipathic polymer particles comprising at least the step, among
other things, of forming an emulsion by admixing any aqueous carrier, any
unsaturated monomer containing any hydrophobic moiety, any unsaturated
monomer containing any convertible moiety in hydrophobic form, and a
surfactant. Dependent claim 7 further limits the method of claim 6 by
specifying the method includes a filtration step. The plain language of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013