Appeal No. 2001-0676
Application No. 08/941,132
page 5). Therefore, the skilled artisan would reasonably
conclude that there would be little or no improvement in
the efficiency of the graft-copolymerization and/or
epoxidation reactions using the deproteinized rubbers,
since the polypeptides from the naturally occurring
proteins are still present and would impede the graft-
copolymerization and/or epoxidation reactions in the same
manner as would the naturally occurring proteins.
According to the appellants and declarant (the Brief, pages 9-19
and the Miyamoto declaration, page 3), the improved efficiency in
graft-copolymerization and epoxidation resulting from the
deproteinization suggested by the applied prior art contrary to the
skilled artisan’s expectation establishes that the claimed subject
matter as a whole imparts unexpected results.
It is not enough for the appellants to evince that the
appellants’ invention produces an improvement. The improvement
must be shown to be unexpected. In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318,
1324, 177 USPQ 139, 143 (CCPA 1973) In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077,
1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). Here, Yasuyuki teaches removing
non-rubber components from natural rubber via a combination of
known protein removing and reducing techniques. See page 2, lines
1-21. According to Yasuyuki (page 3, lines 46-48), proteins are
eliminated from natural rubber to “such a level that it does not
give an absorption at 3280 cm-1 in the infrared absorption
spectrum, which is characteristic to polypeptides, when measured in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007