Appeal No. 2000-0482
Application 08/569,256
composition with compositions containing only components A and C,
there are no examples wherein the claimed composition is
compared with a composition containing components A, C and a PTFE
having a molecular weight outside the claimed range. Where, as
here, the appellant is relying on a claimed critical range to
define over the prior art, he must demonstrate that the results
of optimizing the molecular weight of the PTFE are unexpectedly
good. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA
1977)(“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation.”) See also, In re Best, 562
F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)(“Where, as here,
the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially
identical, or are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove
that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently
possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”)
Appellants also assert that Wagner teaches away from
combining low molecular weight PTFE with other release agents,
except mineral fillers, based on Wagner’s disclosure that while
“[t]he effectiveness of the polytetrafluoroethylene can
frequently be increased by also using silicone oils . . . this
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007