Appeal No. 2001-1852
Application No. 09/172,544
MF homopolymer = 800, MF copolymer = 30, and F = 10 into thec
above equation gives an intrinsic viscosity of 1.1 (answer,
page 12). The examiner’s calculation is incorrect because in the
equation for intrinsic viscosity, fc is the fraction, not the
percentage, of rubbery copolymer in the impact copolymer. Thus,
the examiner should have used fc = 0.10 instead of F = 10 in hisc
calculation. When MF homopolymer = 800, MF copolymer = 30, and
fc = 0.10 are substituted into the above equation for intrinsic
viscosity, the result is 11.1 dg/min, which is well above the
2.0 dg/min upper limit in the appellant’s claim 1. For the
intrinsic viscosity in this calculation to be 1.1 dg/min as
obtained by the examiner, MF homopolymer would have to be 31.4,
which is far below the propylene homopolymer MFR of greater than
300 dg/min desired by Williams (col. 3, lines 14-18).
For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the
teachings from the prior art itself must appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007