Appeal 2007-1901
Application 10/095,922
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the
present record, and we add the following for emphasis only.1
The Examiner properly determined that James, Cook, and Uschold
‘480 taken with Effenberger or Froggatt would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the emulsion polymerization of vinyl fluoride
copolymers. The Examiner properly concluded that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use varying amounts of the
comonomers with an expected variation of properties due to effects on
crystallinity, melting point and varying amounts of fluorine content. The
Examiner recognized that the present record lacked a showing of criticality
for the claimed amounts of comonomers. Appellant did not dispute the
Examiner’s conclusion. Appellant also did not provide evidence to establish
the criticality of the claimed amounts of comonomers.
Appellant contends that, since the polymer product of James and
Cook was recovered by filtration, one skilled in the art would interpret the
filterable product as produced by a high shear process that cannot reasonably
be read to teach or suggest an emulsion polymerization process which
produces a latex which is not filterable (Br. 11, Reply Br. 2-3).
We do not agree that the filtering of the product from the
polymerization media would necessarily exclude emulsion polymerization.
1 In rendering this decision, we have considered the Appellant’s position
presented in the Briefs filed April 12, 2006 and February 19, 2004 and the
Examiner’s position set forth in the Answer and the Office Actions of April
21, 2003 and September 10, 2002.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013