Ex Parte Shelton - Page 15



            1          Hastings also recognizes, as did applicant, that lures made from                           
            2   styrene block copolymers and oil are "tacky."  Col. 3, lines 17-19 and 26-28.                     
            3          The difference between applicant's claimed subject matter and that of                      
            4   Hastings is that Hastings does not explicitly describe the use of detackifiers                    
            5   having a diameter in the range of 2 nanometers to 10 microns and a surface                        
            6   area less than 1000 square meters per gram.  Applicant cannot deny that                           
            7   CAB-O-SILŪ fused silica is a known detackifying agent having the                                  
            8   diameter and surface areas called for by the claims given that it is applicant's                  
            9   preferred detackifying agent.  See (1) Hawley's Condensed Chemical                                
          10    Dictionary, page 194 (12th ed. 1992), which states that CAB-O-SIL has the                         
          11    surface area in the range of 50 to 400 m  2/g, and (2) Newman which                               
          12    identifies the average particle size of CAB-O-SIL as being 0.012 microns                          
          13    (col. 3, lines 10-11).                                                                            
          14           A person having ordinary skill in the art faced with applicant's                           
          15    tackiness problem would have turned to the art which teaches eliminating or                       
          16    minimizing tackiness.  Cf. (1) Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 96 S. Ct.                          
          17    1393, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) (techniques used in other industries relevant to                        
          18    solving problem in data processing in banking industry); (2) Graham v. John                       
          19    Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S. Ct. 684, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) (problem facing                         
          20    insecticide container industry was not an insecticide problem; it was a                           
          21    mechanical closure problem so art dealing with closure techniques relevant);                      
          22    (3) Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 62 S.                         
          23    Ct. 37, 51 USPQ 272 (1941) (automobile cigarette light problem was not a                          
          24    lighter problem; it was a circuit breaker problem so art dealing with circuit                     
          25    breakers was relevant) and (4) Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co.,                               
          26    177 U.S. 485, 20 S. Ct. 708 (1900) (techniques used in other mechanical                           
          27    apparatus relevant to solving a similar mechanical problem in windmills).                         

                                                       15                                                         

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013