Appeal No. 2003-0060
Application 09/236,718
The appellants argue that Pike provides no motivation to
select polyamide-polyester from his disclosed laundry list of
particularly desirable pairs of incompatible polymers (brief,
page 8). Pike’s “laundry list” includes only three pairs of
polymer combinations: polyolefin-polyamide, polyolefin-polyester,
and polyamide-polyester (col. 7, line 60 - col. 8, line 10).
Selection of polyamide-polyester from these three combinations
clearly would have been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art by the reference.
The appellants argue that Pike teaches that polyamides and
polyesters are both inherently hydrophilic and hydrophilically
modifiable, and that one of ordinary skill in the art, therefore,
would not be able to use the disclosed polyamide-polyester pair
(brief, pages 8-9). The inherently hydrophilic polymers
disclosed by Pike are copolymers of poly(oxyethylene) and
polyamide or polyester, not polyamide or polyester homopolymers
(col. 5, line 63 - col. 6, line 6). Polyamide and polyester
homopolymers are disclosed as being hydrophilically modifiable
(col. 6, lines 7-10). Moreover, Pike recites the polyamide-
polyester combination in a claim (4). The appellants, therefore,
are arguing that a claim of a U.S. patent is not enabled. Such
an argument must be supported by clear and convincing evidence,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007