Appeal No. 2004-0285 Page 5
Application No. 08/989,320
comprise unwoven continuous metal filaments, contrary to the theme conveyed in the
appellant’s arguments (Brief, page 7), Bulla does not suggest that powdered metal is
unsuitable for use. Since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered in determining obviousness,2 as we did in the earlier
decision, we agree with the examiner that the artisan also would have been taught by
Bulla to utilize powdered metal as well.
Further with regard to the metal powder, contrary to the discussion presented by
the appellant on pages 7-9 of the Brief, it is our view that Bulla does not teach that a
putter should not use all powder, for there is no basis for concluding that whatever form
is selected for the metal filler - whether filaments or powder - all of the metal is not in
the selected form, that is, all filaments or all powder. Thus, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been taught by Bulla to utilize a single form of metal filler, that is, “all powder,” as
required by claim 10. We reach the same conclusion, based upon the same reasoning,
with regard to the limitations that the metal be all powder “prior to” being blended and
that it be “uniformly” blended with the plastic, for there simply is nothing in the reference
that would instruct the artisan to do otherwise.
With regard to the requirement that the metal powder be between 50 and 95 per
cent by weight of the composition, we stand by the position we set forth in the prior
2In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007