Appeal No. 1998-0652
Application No. 08/188,417
the aforementioned polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer and the
thermoplastic copolymer of vinylidene fluoride. In this
regard, we emphasize and reiterate the appellants’ point that
their claimed composition is intended for the manufacture of
pipes which convey hydrocarbons whereas the composition of
Budzinski is intended for use as a non-volatile, fast-set,
heat-dry plastisol vehicle for printing inks (e.g., see lines
30 through 59 in column 2). Because these respective
compositions are formulated for such widely disparate uses, no
basis exists for concluding that the here claimed polymer
amounts for the appellants’ pipe-making composition would have
been achieved by an ordinarily skilled artisan in the course
of determining the polymer amounts needed to achieve the
printing ink-making use of patentee’s composition. Analogous
reasoning applies to the plasticizer amounts required by the
independent claim on appeal.
Yet another deficiency of the Budzinski reference relates
to the required presence of polystyrene in patentee’s
composition. According to the appellants, the “consisting
essentially of” language of appealed independent claim 1
excludes polystyrene from their claimed composition. In this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007