Appeal No. 2000-0482
Application 08/569,256
composition or device, or carry out the
claimed process; and (2) whether the prior
art would also have revealed that in so
making or carrying out, those of ordinary
skill would have a reasonable expectation
of success. Both the suggestion and the
reasonable expectation of success must
be founded in the prior art, not in the
applicant’s disclosure.
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir.
1991)(citation omitted).
The examiner relies on each of the primary references
as disclosing a mold release composition comprising one or more
of components A and C3 of the claimed invention. Examiner’s
Answer, Paper No. 20, mailed July 27, 1999, page 3, paragraph
(10). The examiner acknowledges that the primary references do
not disclose component B, i.e., a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
having a number-average molecular weight of 50,000 to 500,000.
However, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious
to have used component B in the compositions of the primary
references in view of Wagner which discloses a PTFE release agent
having a molecular weight of 30,000 to 200,000.
3
3See claim 1 for recitations of components A, B and C.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007