Appeal No. 2001-2470 Page 6
Application No. 08/890,134
ratios (see the Answer, pages 5-6). Furthermore, this reference
suggests varying the amount and type of component depending on
the desired properties and end uses, stating that this knowledge
is “readily available to those skilled in the particular art.”
Col. 1, ll. 63-68; see also col. 6, ll. 34-41; and col. 8, ll. 1-
32. Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that Puletti would
have suggested the claimed weight ratios of components to one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time of appellants’ invention.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Appellants
argue that the present invention clearly shows unexpected results
over the closest prior art (Brief, pages 4-5). Therefore we must
reconsider the evidence of obviousness in light of the evidence
of non-obviousness and determine, based on the totality of the
record, whether a preponderance of evidence exists in favor of
obviousness or non-obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellants submit that the present invention has
surprisingly found that the size of the aromatic endblocks, and
not the quantity of the aromatic endblocks, is significant and
provides the elastomeric copolymers with superior stress
relaxation and set characteristics (Brief, page 4). Appellants
argue that a clear showing of unexpected results is shown in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007