Appeal No. 94-4034
Application No. 07/804,160
examiner’s statement. Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal,
we will consider the issues as they apply to claim 5, the
broadest claim on appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993);
now 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Appellants do not argue that the Kosaka reference discloses
a polymer composition containing the claimed amounts of a
polyphenylene ether, a rubber modified high impact polystyrene,
an impact modifier (thermoplastic block elastomer) and an
inorganic filler. See Brief, page 5. Also, appellants
acknowledge at page 5 of the Brief that “[o]ne of the nineteen
inorganic fillers that are mentioned [in the Kosaka reference] is
talc.” Compare In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681,133 USPQ 275,
280 (CCPA 1962) (a prior art genus containing only 20 compounds
anticipated a claimed species within the genus because “one
skilled in [the] art would *** envisage each member” of the
genus). Note also that Abe describes talc as the preferred
inorganic filler in a similar polymer composition. See Abe,
the abstract.
Appellants argue that the Kosaka reference teaches or
suggests using only a single impact modifier (a single linear
block copolymer), rather than two impact modifiers (a mixture of
two linear block copolymers). See Brief, page 5. However, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007