Appeal 1997-2575
Application 08/524,661
describe the use of a filler having greater than 0.25% water
in combination with an oxime/hydroxyl ratio of 1.3. Example 3
is not a description of Beers invention; rather, it is a
description of the influence of the filler. Thus, the Beers
teaching that gelation can be avoided by increasing the
oxime/hydroxyl ratio is not a teaching of how one goes about
making a better Example 3 product. In this respect, it can be
noted that Beers was aware of all of his teachings and yet
limited his invention to the water contents described in his
specification and set out in claim 1 of his patent. If use of
a higher oxime/hydroxyl ratio to solve any problem encountered
in Example 3 would have been obvious, then Beers as an
inventor (an inventor has more knowledge than a person having
ordinary skill in the art) surely would have described a
broader invention in his patent. Compare In re Kleinman, 484
F.2d 1389, 1392, 179 USPQ 244, 245 (CCPA 1973) (there is no
presumption, rebuttable or not, that the holder of a patent
had constructive or actual knowledge of another patent when he
made the invention; however, it might be significant in
weighing the content of a patent as a reference if it can be
demonstrated that an inventor had actual knowledge of all
- 14 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007