Appeal No. 2003-2020
Application No. 08/944,208
adversely affect the rigidity. However, the skilled artisan
would not expect an adverse affect since the inorganic filler is
added by Kato specifically to improve the rigidity in a
combination of resins just like those disclosed by Yamamoto.
Further, Kato discloses that to improve rigidity, inorganic
filler should be added. The skilled artisan would expect that
additional filler could be provided to overcome any reductions in
rigidity due to the addition of an antistatic polymer.
Appellants should not underestimate the level of the skilled
artisan. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). As appellants' arguments have been
unpersuasive, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims
3, 4, and 9 through 14.
We reach the opposite conclusion as to claim 15. Appellants
argue (Brief, page 10) that Yamamoto does not teach the claim
limitation of an antistatic polymer of polyether ester-amide.
The examiner responds (Answer, page 6) that "[a]s claim 15 is
worded, it is not enabled. Even if enabled it would still be one
of many obvious alternatives in a list of potential anti-static
polymers."
First, enablement has nothing to do with whether a claim
limitation would have been obvious. Second, we found supra that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007