Appeal No. 95-1077
Application 07/965,647
polymer which exhibits a melt flow rate of 51 g/10 minutes.
Hoover recognizes that (col. 15, lines 59-66):
When comparing the data of Resin 3 [melt flow
rate: 401 g/10 min.] and Resin 4 [melt flow rate:
356 g/10 min.], as recorded in Table II, it can
clearly be seen that, while employing relatively
small amounts of sodium acetate and controlling the
level of water present during polymerization,
produces a polymer with flow rate very similar to
that of Resin 4, this same process results in
increasing the Resin’s bulk density by approximately
52% compared to that of Resin 4.
Compare appellants’ specification p.15, Example IX and Table
VII (comparison of flow rates establishes that amount of water
present during polymerization effects flow rate).
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that (Answer, pp.5-
6):
Hoover et al. teaches that it is known to lower the
melt flow value by varying the amount of sodium
acetate and controlling the level of water present
during polymerization . . . . It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to lower the melt
flow value to less than 50g/min, as taught by Hoover
in order to increase or decrease the bulk density as
desired.
Compare In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219
(CCPA 1980)(“discovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the
skill of the art”). Appellants have failed to establish
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007