Appeal No. 2007-0917 Page 4
Application No. 10/012,919
hexafluoropropylene, chlorotrifluoroethylene, fluoroalkyl vinyl ether and the like.”
Ishiwari, page 3, lines 3-5. Of these two PTFE powders, Ishiwari teaches that
“the modified PTFE powder is preferred since it has good moldability.” Ishiwari,
page 3, lines 5-6.
Ishiwari exemplifies the extrusion of a mixture of modified PTFE and a
lubricant3 through “an extruder having a nozzle diameter ratio of
1.32 mm/1.085 mm to produce an unsintered PTFE hollow yarn having a wall
thickness of 0.12 mm.” Ishiwari, Example 1, bridging paragraph, pages 3-4.
Appellants “acknowledge that PTFE and ‘modified PTFE’ may be used in the
disclosed method of EP ‘584 [(Ishiwari)].” Brief4, page 9.
For their part, appellants emphasize that all the examples in Ishiwari use
“a ‘modified PTFE’, not PTFE as set forth in the claims.” From this, appellants
assert that Ishiwari does not disclose “the use of PTFE and, thus, does not
disclose all of the limitations of the appealed claims.” We disagree.
As appellants recognize, Ishiwari teaches an extrusion method which may
be used with either PTFE or modified PTFE. Brief, page 9. Ishiwari exemplifies
this extrusion method using a mixture of modified PTFE and lubricant with an
extruder having a specified nozzle diameter ratio. Ishiwari, Example 1, bridging
paragraph, pages 3-4. Ishiwari teaches that this extrusion results in a tubular
3 Ishiwari teaches the use of hydrocarbon oil (Isoper E manufactured by Esso Oil). Ishiwari,
page 4. The examiner finds that this “processing” oil is a lubricant. Answer, page 5. Appellants
do not dispute this finding. Accordingly, we find that appellants have conceded that the oil used
by Ishiwari is a lubricant within the scope of their claimed invention.
4 All reference to the Brief refer to appellants’ Supplemental Brief, received December 4, 2006.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013