Appeal No. 2001-0965
Application 08/751,035
dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility” but were
inferior to circuit boards made with his polyester-imide resins.
See id., 27 F.3d at 552-53, 31 USPQ2d at 1131. The court noted
that Yamaguchi taught that epoxy had been used for Gurley’s
purpose, that Gurley did not distinguish his epoxy product from
that described by Yamaguchi, and that Gurley did not offer
specific epoxies or improved properties. See id., 27 F.3d at
553, 31 USPQ2d at 1132. The court stated that “Gurley asserted
no discovery beyond what was known to the art”. Id.
Unlike in Gurley, Blum does not indicate that feeding
particles having the appellants’ particle size to a
mashing-boiling-filtering sequence was known in the art but is
inferior to using particles having Blum’s particle size.
Instead, Blum indicates that particles smaller than those used by
the appellants are to be used in Blum’s mashing-boiling-filtering
sequence (col. 2, lines 24-33).
The examiner argues that “[t]here is no requirement [in
Blum] that a 60 mesh grind must be used. What is found is merely
a teaching, for those of ordinary skill in the art, that the
grist must [be] ground fine enough so as to limit the amount of
starch and it is suggested that Blum found a grind of 60 mesh to
be satisfactory. Blum leaves open for those in the art to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007