Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 316, 227 USPQ 766, 771 (Fed. Cir.
1985), and skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention,
see In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2D 1529, 1532
(Fed. Cir. 1988). The Board must consider all of the applicant's
evidence. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444, ("An observation by the Board that the examiner made a prima
facie case is not improper, as long as the ultimate determination
of patentability is made on the entire record."); In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
It does appear that there is some evidence that the
appellants’ cold-box process and “bio-resin” (Declaration, pages
7-10) results in some improved characteristics and has achieved a
degree of commercial success. However, there is not an
established nexus between the results and the claimed subject
matter. The declaration states that this is due to activator 2E
on page 7 of the specification, which contains only rapeseed oil
methyl ester as a polyisocyanate solvent. In other words, there
may be support for improved results when the polyisocyanate
solvent consists of rapeseed oil, but not for the claims as
instantly being prosecuted - wherein the polyisocyanate solvent is
comprised of FAME wherein the fatty acid has a carbon chain of 12
or more carbon atoms and the FAME is present in a quantity greater
than high-boiling aromatic hydrocarbon. Further, the appellants
27
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007