Appeal 2007-1900
Application 10/605,858
A. Obviousness of Claims 7 and 10
With respect to claims 7 and 10, Appellants contend that Galmiche
fails to disclose or suggest that a sufficient amount of alcohol is present to
dissolve Galmiche’s activator as recited in claim 1. As we found above that
even a small amount of dissolution is encompassed by claim 1 and that it is
reasonable to believe that such dissolution occurs in the mixing step of
Galmiche’s Example 1, we determine that the limitation is taught by
Galmiche.
Appellants further contend that the surface active agent of Galmiche is
an extraneous binder excluded by claim 1. For the reasons stated above, we
determine that this is not the case.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner committed reversible
error in rejecting claims 7 and 10 as obvious.
B. Obviousness of Claim 29
With respect to claim 29, Appellants again contend that Galmiche
does not form an “activator solution.” As we stated above with respect to
claim 21, we determine that the dissolved activator of Galmiche will form an
activator solution.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner committed a reversible
error in rejecting claim 29.
C. Obviousness of Claims 13-20 and 32
With respect to claims 13-20 and 32, Appellants contend that these
claims require “dissolving at least one ammonium halide activator in water.”
The issue is: Does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to use water as the solvent for
the surface active agent?
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013