Appeal 2007-1900
Application 10/605,858
Lewis, Richard J., Sr., Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary (14th Ed.,
2002).
Appellants contend that the surface active agent of Galmiche might
contribute “at least slightly” to the cohesiveness of the mixture (Br. 19).
Galmiche discloses the surface active agent as functioning as “conferring
thixotropic properties,” i.e., non-newtonian flow characteristics, to the
mixture. There is no evidence that the surface active agent serves a binding
function. Moreover, even if the agent has some affect on cohesiveness, it
does not seem to meet the definition of a binder as that term is used in the
art.
We determine that the language “an activator dissolved in a solvent”
as recited in claim 1 encompasses any amount of activator dissolved in a
solvent. We further determine that there is a reasonable basis to conclude
that mixing step of Galmiche’s Example 1 contains at least some “activator
dissolved in a solvent.” We further conclude that the language “an
extraneous binder” does not encompass surface active agents such as those
described by Galmiche.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner made a reversible error
in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, and 31 as anticipated.
B. Anticipation of Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 30, and 33
Appellants group claims 21, 23-25, 28, 30, and 33 together in
contending that Galmiche does not disclose that a sufficient amount of
alcohol is used to dissolve a sufficient amount of activator to form a solution
(Br. 20). We select claim 21 as the representative claim in considering the
issue arising from Appellants’ contention. The issue is: Does Galmiche
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013