Appeal No. 1996-2015
Application No. 08/181,539
dispersion, (c) the disperser, (d) a polymerization reactor and (e) associated means for supplying the
dispersion to the polymerization reactor. The disperser comprises either a stationary part (stator) and a
rotating part (rotor) (claims 28 and 29) or two rotors (claims 32 and 33). The field of shear force
generation may be regarded as lying in a space of specified clearance either between the stator and the
rotor or between the two rotors. The width of the clearance through which the dispersion is discharged
can be adjusted to obtain particles having a desired size and distribution. (See specification, pages 4-
11; brief, pages 2-8.)
OPINION
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be some suggestion or motivation to
modify the reference or combined reference teachings and a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, the prior art must teach or suggest all the claim limitations. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,
493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This does not mean that the cited prior art references
must specifically suggest making the combination. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems
Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d
1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rather, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the prior art references as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007