Appeal No. 95-1079
Application 08/037,192
functions of Mahabadi’s chain inhibitor. According to Mahabadi,
the primary function of the chain inhibitor is “to control
molecular weight by inhibiting chain growth” (col. 5, lines 36-
42). Appellants’ “stable free radical agent” also appears to be
controlling molecular weight by inhibiting chain growth.
Appellants have disclosed the agent has been used to “cap the
ends of growing [polymer] chains.” This would reasonably infer
to one skilled in the art that the molecular weight of the
polymer is being controlled since capping the chain necessarily
limits any indiscriminate growth of the polymer chain thereby
regulating the addition of monomers to the growing chain. Since
Mahabadi’s process, like appellants’ claimed process, requires an
initial partial bulk polymerization of the polymer mixture, it is
reasonable to attribute the partial polymerization in Mahabadi’s
process to the inclusion of the chain inhibitor in the monomer
mixture.
Finally, it is noted that claim 34 is a product by process
claim. The patentability of this claim is based on the product
itself. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966
(Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685,
688 (CCPA 1972). Since we find appellants’ claimed process to be
unpatentable, it necessarily follows that the product made by the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007