Appeal 2007-1900
Application 10/605,858
We answer this question in the negative.
The Examiner’s reasoning is as follows:
As to claims 6, 13-15, and 26, Galmiche et al. lacks a
teaching of using water as the solvent. Galmiche et al. teaches
using solvents that are absolute alcohols whose boiling point is
preferably located between 80 C and 120 C (col. 3, lines 36-
42). It is noted that water is chemically similar to alcohols and
has a boiling point of 100 C, within the specified boiling point
range. It would have been obvious to have used water as the
solvent in the process of Galmiche et al. with the expectation of
similar and successful results since water is inexpensive, readily
available, and is similar to alcohols and has a boiling point in
the specified range. Additionally, Galmiche's list of surface
active agents, which is dissolved in the solvent, is merely
exemplary and not limiting.
(Answer 5).
Galmiche discloses that:
as regards the surface active agent which has to be incorporated, in the
form of solution, with the foregoing constituents to obtain the final
thixotropic cement, there are preferably adopted,
as solvent, an aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon, or an absolute
alcohol, whose boiling point is preferably located between 80° and 120°C.
(Gamiche, col. 3, ll. 30-37)
Water is not an aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon nor an absolute
alcohol. The Examiner finds that water is chemically similar to alcohols, but
water is not in the same chemical genus of organic solvents as are the
compounds of Galmiche. The Examiner fails to provide the level of
evidence required to support the conclusion of obviousness.
D. Obviousness of Claims 6 and 26
Claims 6 and 26 also require dissolving the activator in water. For the
reasons provided above with respect to claims 13-20 and 32, we determine
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013