Appeal No. 1997-2977
Application No. 08/431,688
In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508-09, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA
1972).
The appellants argue that Mozelewski’s fluoropolymer
coating is intended to remain on the coated structure whereas
the fluoropolymer coating of their claimed invention is
removed naturally after it has served its purpose of
protecting the substrate in a terrestrial environment and the
spacecraft comprising the substrate is placed in outer space
(substitute appeal brief, pages 15-16). As we discussed
above, however, the reason for using the same fluoropolymer in
the prior art need not be identical to that of the appellants.
Kemps, 97 F.3d at 1430, 40 USPQ2d at 1311. It is sufficient
that the prior art references provide a teaching, suggestion,
or motivation to use the same fluoropolymer to arrive at a
product encompassed by appealed claim 1. Here, the TEFLON
described in Babel is one of the named species for the
fluoropolymer of the presently claimed invention
(specification, page 14, lines 5-16). Similarly, Mozelewski’s
preferred fluoropolymer (column 8, lines 47-56) is chemically
similar to the named fluoropolymer species as described in the
specification and is therefore indistinguishable from the
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007