Appeal No. 1996-1456
Application No. 08/059,840
mixture,” or the corresponding limitations in independent claim
21 requiring first and second housing shells molded from a
combination of crystalline resin and a filler material
representing “between 10 and 30% by weight of the combination,”
and independent claim 26 requiring first and second housing
shells molded from a combination of crystalline resin and a glass
fiber material representing “between 10 and 30% by weight of the
combination.”4 The appellants’ specification explains that
[a] content of the filler below 10% by weight causes
the welding properties of the crystalline resin to be
deteriorated, whereas the content above 30% by weight
causes heat resistance, resistance to thermal
deformation, resistance to impact or shock, and
strength of the casing to be deteriorated, as well as
causes wearing of a mold for forming the casing and
deterioration in moldability [pages 7 and 8].
The examiner’s reliance on Kato to cure the acknowledged
deficiency in Hitachi Maxell is not well founded.
4 The 45 to 65 percent filler range disclosed by Hitachi
Maxell cannot be directly compared with the 10 to 30 percent
filler range specified in claims 1, 21 and 26. The 45 to 65
percent filler range is relative to the associated plastic base,
not the plastic base-filler mixture, while the 10 to 30 percent
range recited in the claims is relative to the resin-filler
mixture or combination. The 45 percent to 65 percent filler
range constitutes 45 to 65 parts filler per 100 parts plastic
base, or about 31 to about 39 percent of the plastic-filler
mixture. Of course, the Hitachi Maxell range as so converted
still fails to respond to the 10 to 30 percent filler range
recited in appealed claims 1, 21 and 26.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007