Appeal No. 2000-1854
Application No. 08/993,426
We also agree with the examiner's reasoning pertaining to
the separately argued claims on appeal. The narrower ranges of
amounts of components in claims 20 and 21 are rendered prima
facie obvious by the broader ranges disclosed by Aketa. In re
Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 22, appellants contend that "[n]either of the
claimed silicon-containing compounds are taught by Aketa or the
secondary references" (page 18 of principal brief, first full
paragraph). However, "a silicone elastomer" of claim 22 is met
by the silicone resins disclosed by Aketa. Likewise for "a
silicone elastomer" of claim 23.
As for the injection-molded article of claim 32 "with a wall
whose tensile modulus is increased as its thickness decreases,"
we find it reasonable to conclude that the molded articles fairly
taught by Aketa would meet the claimed relationship. In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Appellants have not presented any comparative objective evidence
to demonstrate otherwise.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007