Appeal No. 1997-4336
Application No. 08/279,317
invention is either anticipated or rendered obvious
from this example since each of the components of
the Examples falls within the scope of the instantly
claimed invention. The burden is on appellants to
show otherwise. [Examiner’s answer,
pp. 6-7.]
Thus, a principal question raised here is whether the
evidence, namely Sander, supplies a sufficient factual basis
upon which to shift the burden of proof to the appellants to
show that a solution within the scope of appealed claim 20 is
not formed in Sander’s Example 1. We do not think that it
does.
Sander teaches that 14 parts of a linear polyethylene
having a density of 0.96 g/cm , a melt index of 4.5 g/10 min.3
(190EC./2.16 kg) and a melting point of 130EC. is dissolved in
a mixture of 51.6 parts of low-boiling naphtha and 34.4 parts
of a pentane/isopentane mixture in a pressure vessel. (Column
6, lines 29-35.) The pressure is said to be 20 atmospheres.
(Column 6, lines 35-36.) According to Sander, the solution is
passed through a two-component nozzle downwardly and centrally
into a filter tube, which is suspended in a chamber filled
with nitrogen at atmospheric pressure and 40EC, to form the
fibers. (Column 6, lines 36-42 and 50-54.) Sander further
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007