Appeal No. 1997-4255
Application 08/443,672
Example 72B begins with “The poly(L-lactide) from Example 57B.” Turning to page 112,
lines 12 through 25 of Sinclair, we find that the poly(L-lactide) recovered in Example 57B is
transparent but not in the form of a sheet.
Furthermore, the first step in Example 72B of Sinclair describes melting and mixing
the poly(L-lactide) from Example 57B on an open 2-roll mill for five minutes at 190EC. This
is quite different from claim 7, step (a), which recites holding a poly-L-lactic acid
transparent sheet at temperature T for m minutes, wherein T is in the range of 55-90EC1 1 1
and m satisfies a specified formula. On this record, the examiner has not established that
1
it would have been obvious to go from “here to there,” i.e., from the melting and mixing step
described by Sinclair at 190EC to the holding step recited in claim 7(a) at 55-90EC.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of claims 5 and 7 based on the disclosure of Sinclair.
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to discuss the objective evidence of non-obviousness
in appellants' specification, the Suzuki declaration executed March 20, 1995, or the Suzuki
declaration executed April 17, 1995, relied on by the applicants
to rebut any such prima facie case.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007