Appeal No. 1998-1226
Application No. 08/420,330
conductivity (col. 4, ll. 22-31). Tennent also teaches that
the amount of fibrils should be “an effective electrical
conductivity enhancing amount” or other amounts depending on
the property desired (see col. 8, ll. 1-14). In our view,
these teachings of Tennent show that the amount of fibrils
loaded into the elastomer matrix was known to be a result
effective variable. It is well settled that generally the
optimization of a result effective variable would have been
well within the ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). We note
that no showing of unexpected results based on the amount of
fibrils has been proferred by appellants.
The examiner applies Geus and Tomoda as secondary
references to show various limitations of dependent claims,
e.g., Geus teaches the advantages of a fishbone-like
arrangement of the graphite layers along the axis of the
filaments (Answer, page 3) but this limitation is not found in
claim 53 which is the claim that is the focus of our decision.
Accordingly, no further discussion of Geus is necessary to our
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007