Appeal No. 1996-1372
Application No. 08/003,659
Claim 22 recites a method which comprises molding a crystalline polypropylene resin
composition comprising a crystalline polypropylene resin and at least one specifically defined diamide
compound as a ß-nucleating agent in an amount sufficient to provide an increased proportion of ß-form
crystal. According to appellants, “[t]he diamide in EP 0 263 678 [i.e., Shibuya] is added to a very
different composition and to accomplish a different result than that specified in claim 22" (brief, page 5).
First, the language of claim 22, i.e., a crystalline polypropylene resin composition comprising a
crystalline polypropylene resin and at least one specifically defined diamide compound, opens the claim
to crystalline polypropylene resins which include other components, e.g., the polyphenylene ether and
hydrogenated alkenyl aromatic compound/conjugated diene block copolymer of the resin composition
of Shibuya. Secondly, as set forth in In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311
(Fed. Cir. 1996), citing In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(in banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) all that is needed is that the prior art suggest the claimed
invention for any reason. See In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 605 (CCPA 1967)
(“We think it is sufficient that the prior art clearly suggests doing what appellants have done, although an
underlying explanation of exactly why this should be done, other than to obtain the expected superior
beneficial results, is not taught or suggested in the cited references.”). Therefore, we agree with the
examiner (answer, page 3) that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the diamide
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007