Appeal No. 1999-2507
Application No. 08/967,367
describe cycloolefin copolymers within the scope of the appealed
claims and that the prior art provides the requisite reasonable
expectation of success for adding Laughner's elastomeric impact
modifier into the composition of either Brekner or Yamamoto in
order to improve impact strength. ( Id.)
While acknowledging that Laughner's elastomeric impact
modifiers "might fall within the definition of the applicants'
claimed component (b)," the appellants argue that Laughner's
elastomeric impact modifiers are only an optional component and
that "as examples of thermoplastics and elastomers a lot of
polyolefins are mentioned." These arguments are not persuasive.
(Appeal brief, page 7.) That Laughner's elastomeric impact
modifiers are disclosed as an optional component does not alter
the analysis. As pointed out by the examiner (examiner's answer,
page 9), one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected
that Laughner's elastomeric impact modifiers, including the MBS
core/shell elastomer, would improve the impact strength of the
products described in either Brekner or Yamamoto.
The appellants urge that Laughner's patented claims do not
recite cycloolefin copolymers as the thermoplastic material.
(Appeal brief, page 8.) We also reject this argument because the
disclosure of a prior art patent is not limited to its claims. A
prior art disclosure must be evaluated for all that it discloses.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007