Appeal No. 94-3726
Application 07/978,531
reasonable to conclude that the two blends’ mixing could be
effected thereby.” (answer, page 4). Although this reasoning
may be correct, the examiner has failed to explain why it
would have been obvious to heat the biocide concentrate and
polymer to the claimed temperature range. Yeager does not
heat the biocide solution and polymer at all to effect mixing.
Tirpak teaches heating to a very high temperature (300 to
400BF.) To form a homogenous composition (column 4, lines 42-
46). The Rei patents teach melting or softening the polymer
to promote mixing (e.g., se Rei ‘080, column 9, lines 54-61).
The examiner has not shown or explained why the temperature
limitations recited in step (b) of appealed claim 1 would have
been obvious in view of the applied prior art.
The examiner has also failed to address the limitation of
step (c) in appealed claim 1 other than mere reference to
cooling per see (answer, page 4).
The legal conclusion regarding obviousness relies on a
factual foundation, including the definition of the scope and
content of the prior art. See Panduit Corp. V. Dennison Mfg.
Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-97 (Fed. Cir.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007