Appeal No. 95-3233
Application No. 08/094,477
Reynolds number employed by Brady, we agree with the examiner4
that Kondo would have supplied the requisite motivation for
one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the Brady process
at the claimed Reynolds number for the catalyst
precursor/monomer feed. In a process for making polypropylene
by introducing a catalyst precursor along with the propylene
feed, Kondo teaches that the Reynolds number of the relevant
feed should be greater than 3,000 which, as noted by the
examiner, encompasses the claimed value of 20,000. It is well
settled that where patentability is predicated upon a change
in a condition of a prior art process, such as here, a
purported change in Reynolds number, that change must at least
be critical, i.e., it must lead to a new or unexpected result,
and the burden of establishing such criticality rests on the
applicant. See In re Ranier, 377 F.2d 1006, 1010, 153 USPQ
802, 805 (CCPA 1967); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ
233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As stated by our reviewing court in In
re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed.
Cir. 1990):
4We note that both the Brady patent and appellants'
present invention share the same assignee, Union Carbide
Chemicals and Plastics Co., Inc.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007