Appeal No. 2004-2031
Application No. 09/773,286
OPINION
I. The anticipation rejection
We consider claims 17, 18 and 24 in this rejection.
We refer to pages 3-5 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection.
With regard to claim 17, appellants set forth the arguments
on pages 4-7 of the brief and appellants set forth additional
arguments in the reply brief. Primarily, appellants argue that
claim 17 is directed to a method of improving a molded polyurea
polymer’s blister resistance. Appellants argue that
Muenstermann does not disclose that blister resistance may be
increased by the presence of jojoba oil in the formulation.
Appellants also argue that Tables I and II of their
specification demonstrate the unexpected results obtained by the
addition of jojoba oil to polyurea. We are not convinced by
these arguments for the following reasons.
As pointed out by the examiner on page 4 of the answer,
because Muenstermann discloses the same composition as used in
appellants’ claimed method, the composition inherently possesses
the blister resistant characteristics of appellants’ claimed
composition used in the method of improving blister resistance.
Because appellants have not shown that their composition is
different from the composition utilized in Muenstermann, we must
follow the logic of In re Tomlinson, 363 F.2d 928, 934, 150 USPQ
623, 628 (CCPA 1966), and determine that appellants' process
claims are unpatentable by reason of their reading on a process
utilizing an old composition. In In re Tomlinson, the claim at
issue was directed to a process of inhibiting degradation of
polypropylene caused by exposure to light, comprising admixing
one of a genus of compounds, including nickel dithiocarbamate,
with polypropylene. A reference taught mixing polypropylene
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007