Appeal No. 1997-2335 Page 6
Application No. 08/367,913
vinylidene fluoride of the copolymer as claimed herein as
evidenced by the heterogeneous copolymers reported in the
table on the third page of the Tournut reference which have
smaller VDF homopolymer domains as noted by the examiner
(answer, page 4, last paragraph).
The examiner has not presented sufficient evidence to
establish or adequately explained why Tournut would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the preparation
of a copolymer with a much greater VDF homopolymer domain as
claimed herein given that the homopolymer has a higher
flexural modulus than that desired by Tournut. On this
record, the examiner has not convincingly demonstrated that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to a
copolymer corresponding to the claimed copolymer with a VDF
homopolymer domain size and high relative amount of the total
copolymer VDF contained therein by an optimization of the
copolymer of Tournut. See In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907, 175
USPQ 93, 95 (CCPA 1972).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Because we
reverse on this basis, we need not reach the issue of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007