Appeal No. 2003-2020
Application No. 08/944,208
inorganic filler for rigidity. Appellants argue (Brief, page 10)
that Yamamoto is silent as to heat-deforming temperatures.
However, the materials of both Kato and Yamamoto would be
expected to have different heat-deforming temperatures as they
are the same materials as those used by appellants. Appellants
should remember that an obviousness rejection cannot be overcome
by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants contend (Brief, page 8) that in view of failures
in the prior art, the skilled artisan "would not know if adding
the antistatic polymer to the compositions provided in Kato would
adversely affect the rigidity as one would not know how they
would interact with the inorganic filler." Appellants point to
Yamamoto as suggesting that mixing components does not lead to
satisfactory results in this art. Further, appellants state that
the skilled artisan would expect that the addition of an
antistatic polymer would adversely affect rigidity because of an
approach described in their specification whereby the addition of
an antistatic polymer to a low heat-resistant thermoplastic resin
decreased structural rigidity.
One of ordinary skill in the art might not know for sure if
adding the antistatic polymer to Kato's compositions would
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007