Appeal No. 2001-2071
Application 09/285,921
of (C) have a viscosity which is lower by a factor of two to five
compared to concentrates formed by blending identical components
(A) and (B) in the absence of (C) (brief, page 3). We stated in
our decision (page 5) that because Song would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, combining the
appellants’ components (A), (B) and (C) simultaneously or in any
order, the proper comparison would be between blending components
(A) and (B) in the presence of (C) versus blending (A) and (B) in
the absence of (C) and then blending (C) into the mixture of (A)
and (B).
The appellants argue in their request for rehearing (page 4)
that even if adding (C) to a previously formed mixture of
(A) and (B) lowers the viscosity of that mixture, the
processability and handling of the mixture of (A) and (B), due to
its relatively high viscosity, would be relatively difficult
during the period before (C) is added. Consequently, the
appellants argue, the effect of the presence of (C) on the
viscosity of a mixture of (A) and (B) is of importance even if
subsequent addition of (C) to a mixture of (A) and (B) lowers the
viscosity of that mixture. See id. The appellants argue that
the effect of the presence of (C) is not suggested by Song, and
is an unexpected result. See id.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007