Appeal No. 1998-0652
Application No. 08/188,417
regard, the examiner does not argue that it would have been
obvious to remove polystyrene from Budzinski’s composition but
instead takes the basic position that polystyrene is not
excluded by the aforenoted claim language. In particular, the
examiner seems to believe that no showing has been made that
the presence of polystyrene would affect the basic and novel
characteristics of the here claimed composition. 1
From our perspective, however, Budzinski’s teaching, that
polystyrene enables patentee’s vinylidene fluoride polymer and
plasticizer combination to be used as a plastisol vehicle for
printing inks, suggests that polystyrene would have a similar
affect on the vinylidene fluoride polymer/plasticizer
combination defined by appealed claim 1. Plainly, the
transformation of the here claimed composition into a
plastisol would be antithetical to the pipe-making use
intended by the appellants for this composition. It follows
that the Budzinski reference itself would appear to show that
the presence of polystyrene would materially affect the basic
1For example, see In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951,
954, 137 USPQ 893, 896 (CCPA 1963)(“consisting essentially of”
excludes from a claimed composition ingredients which
materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the
composition).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007