Appeal No. 2001-2470 Page 4
Application No. 08/890,134
compatible resin to oil have been disclosed by Puletti that
generically encompass the claimed ratio. We agree.
Appellants argue that Puletti discloses that the block
copolymer was blended with hydrocarbon resin and oil in a weight
ratio of 4:1 with a maximum weight ratio of hydrocarbon resin to
block copolymer of 20:30 (Brief, page 4). Therefore appellants
argue that Puletti does not teach, show or suggest the claimed
weight ratio of 1.5:1 to 3.5:1 midblock compatible resin to oil,
or the weight ratio of at least 120:100 midblock compatible resin
to unhydrogenated elastomeric block copolymer, as recited in the
claims (id.). Furthermore, appellants argue that Puletti does
not motivate or suggest increasing the amount of oil in the
presence of hydrocarbon resin (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. It is well
settled that when the mere difference between the claimed
invention and the prior art is some range or other variable, the
claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, absent a showing of unexpected results. See In
re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Therefore, even assuming arguendo that appellants have
correctly interpreted Puletti, the determination or optimization
of the claimed weight ratio would have been well within the
ordinary skill in this art. See Woodruff, supra; In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); and In re
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007