Appeal No. 2001-2635
Application 09/168,083
We agree with appellants that, given the teachings in
Murphy, it would have required more than optimization through
“routine experimentation” for one of ordinary skill in the art to
go from the relatively large size reflective particles or
“glitter specks” taught in Murphy to the minute metal particles
in the dispersion claimed by appellants, which particles are more
than 200 times smaller than the metal particles taught in Murphy.
Simply stated, while the discovery of optimum or workable ranges
from the general particle size parameters disclosed in Murphy
might have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine
experimentation, to a particle size that would be perhaps 20%,
30%, 50%, or even approaching 100% larger or smaller than those
set forth in that patent, we see nothing in Murphy that would
have provided any suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary
skill in the art to contemplate a particle size that is more than
200 times smaller than the particle size set forth in Murphy. For
that reason, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 9, or claims 2, 3 and 5 through 8 which depend therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007