Appeal 2007-2337
Application 10/437,919
particular application. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,
238 (CCPA 1971).
After consideration of the present record, we determine that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have realized, just as asserted by the
Appellant, that the “parts by weight” values recited in the claims are based
on the two polyols in the prepolymer. Thus, we determine that the claims
reasonably apprise those of ordinary skill in the art of their scope.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112, second paragraph, rejection
of claims 11-15 and 17-24 as indefinite.
The rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 11-15 and 17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Graefe, Heidingsfeld, or Pudleiner.
Appellant does not argue that the applied prior art fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.1 Instead, it is the Appellant’s position that
“[t]he present invention claims the unexpected enhanced properties found in
polyurethane elastomers which incorporate certain glycol phthalic
anhydride-based polyester polyols” (Br. 13). The Appellant further contends
“[w]hen these polyols are incorporated into the claimed parts per weight
mixtures, the resulting polyurethane elastomers have the following
unexpected, enhanced properties: reduced thermoplasticity, significantly
increased tear strength when measured both at ambient temperature and at
elevated temperature (70°C), significantly higher flex fatigue resistance, and
higher tensile strength and percent elongation at the same hardness.” (Br.
13).
1 Appellant does not provide additional details to support the conclusory
statement appearing at the top of the page 13 of the Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013