Appeal No. 2004-2031
Application No. 09/773,286
with nickel dithiocarbamete to lower heat degradation. The
court held that the claims read on the process of mixing
polypropylene with the nickel dithiocarbamate and that the
preamble of the claim was merely directed to the result of
mixing the two materials. “While the references do not show a
specific recognition of that result, its discovery by appellants
is tantamount only to finding a property in the old composition,
not in the nickel compound for which, it is argued, a new use
has been found”. [emphasis added] Id., 363 F.2d at 934, 150
USPQ at 628. The court ruled the process claims unpatentable by
reason of their reading on the admixture of polypropylene and
nickel dithiocarbamate, an old mixture.
Applying this same analysis to the present case, we can
state that the method of improving blister resistance is merely
directed to the result of processing in the claimed manner set
forth in claim 17 when utilizing the particularly claimed
components.
With regard to Tables 1 and 2, because this rejection is
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), evidence of unexpected results is of
no effect. Appellants’ burden is to show that in fact the
composition in Muenstermann does not exhibit improved blister
resistance.
In view of the above, we affirm the anticipation rejection
of claim 17.
With regard to claim 18, appellants state that
“Muenstermann does not recite the isocyanate index”. However,
we refer to page 5 of the answer, wherein the examiner states
that the examples of Muenstermann do disclose index values and
states the index values are 1.20, 1.10, 1.10 and 1.10,
respectively, in the examples, beginning on page 13 of
Muenstermann. The examples pointed out by the examiner do show
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007