Appeal No. 2000-1854
Application No. 08/993,426
Appellants state at page 12 of the principal brief that
"[a]lso of significance, is that none of the twenty-one examples
shown in Aketa apparently use any of the disclosed additional
resins" (second paragraph). We simply do not understand this
argument of appellants since, as pointed out by the examiner,
EXAMPLES 6-15 of Aketa all comprise "additional resins" (see
TABLE 2).
Regarding appellants' argument that the 1 to 90 parts of
additional thermoplastic resins disclosed by Aketa indicates that
the additional resins, including silicone resins, are not taught
as reinforcing agents (page 13 of principal brief, first
paragraph), it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness
under § 103 for the prior art to teach the same purpose for
including a component in a composition. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d
1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Dillon,
919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en
banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). As explained above,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
include the claimed amounts of silicone resins in the molding
compositions of Aketa for the purpose of enhanced compatibility
and Izod impact strength.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007