Appeal No. 2003-1926 Page 5
Application No. 09/095,842
particle size and solids content is not obtained without the non-ionic, non-fluorine-containing
surfactant (MYS40) where less than 1 wt. % of the fluorine-containing surfactant (PFOA) is
added.
The present case is one in which there is only one method disclosed for forming the
claimed product and, in that described method, the presence of a non-ionic, non-fluorine-
containing surfactant is essential for forming the dispersion with the particle size, solids content,
and fluorine-containing surfactant level claimed. In addition, the interpretation of the
specification as indicating that the non-ionic, non-fluorine-containing surfactant is essential is
reasonable in light of the evidence of what those of ordinary skill in the art generally understood
about VdF dispersions and the tenor of the specification as a whole as to what Appellants have
invented. In this situation, it is eminently fair and reasonable to shift the burden to the
Appellants to show that undue experimentation would not be required to practice the invention
for the full scope of the claims. In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 1161, 196 USPQ 209, 215 (CCPA
1977).
Appellants argue that their specification, at page 4, lines 7-12, describes a dispersion
using only a fluorine-containing surfactant in the amount of not more than 1% by weight on the
basis of water (Brief, p. 8). This argument is not persuasive because the paragraph Appellants
refer to only states that the invention relates to an aqueous dispersion of a VdF polymer having
the specified particle size, solids content, and less than 1 wt. % fluorine-containing surfactant.
This paragraph does not explain how to make the dispersion nor does it indicate that only
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007