Appeal No. 96-0640
Application 08/127,178
1984). Here, the examiner has not satisfied his initial
burden.
The examiner argues (Ans., pp. 8):
It would have been obvious . . . to use approximately
3 parts of lead powder or other dense filler of Metzger
to one part of polymer by mass because such large
quantity
of lead is expected to give a film having a large mass
due
to the large density of lead which is expected to result
in greater resonant frequency reduction of an object
coated
therewith according to applicant’s admission that
resonant
frequency is inversely proportional to the objects [sic]
mass. The use of large amounts of filler is also
expected
by the ordinary skilled artisan to increase the
properties
which the ordinary skilled artisan normally uses fillers
to achieve . . . .
Even presuming that persons having ordinary skill in the art
would have been aware that mass is inversely proportional to
resonant frequency, we are not convinced that appellant’s
claimed mass-loaded coatings and methods of reducing the
resonant frequency of a rigid element by applying said
coatings, are unpatentable primarily because the examiner
finds that generally “[t]he use of large amounts of filler is
also expected by the ordinary skilled artisan to increase the
properties which the ordinary skilled artisan normally uses
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007