Appeal 2007-1559
Application 10/151,746
in polymeric compositions embraced by the Butler disclosure. We agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious, based on the collective teachings of Butler and JP '247, to
formulate a composition comprising the claimed components wherein the
molar ratio of isocyanate-hydroxyl groups is optimally within the range of
0.7 to 1.3. We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that a carbon fiber reinforced composition can
also be achieved by using molar ratios of isocyanate/hydroxyl groups
outside the optimal range disclosed by JP '247 without achieving all the
benefits taught by JP’247.
Appellant maintains that the claimed molar ratio of isocyanate/
hydroxyl groups of "about 0.05 to about 0.65" is not taught by JP '247. We
disagree. As correctly pointed out by the Examiner, it has long been held
that the claim term "about" permits some tolerance with respect to the
recited value. In re DeVaney, 185 F.2d 679, 683, 88 USPQ 97, 101 (CCPA
1950); In re Ayers, 154 F.2d 182, 185, 69 USPQ 109, 112 (CCPA 1946);
In re Perkins, 346 F.2d 981, 984, 146 USPQ 63, 65 (CCPA 1965).
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that there is no patentable
distinction between the claimed molar ratio of "about 0.65" and the ratio
of 0.7 disclosed by JP '247. Also, we find that Appellant's Specification
attaches no criticality to the claimed range for the molar ratio. To wit, the
Specification discloses that the amount of diisocyanate is contingent upon
the reactive hydroxyl content of the unsaturated polyester component, and
that "[g]enerally, the composition will comprise from about 5 to about 65
mole percent, preferably from about 35 to about 50 mole percent, of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013