Appeal No. 2004-2322 Page 6
Application No. 09/385,412
still sufficiently high to produce at least substantially choked flow through
the intermediate restrictor . . . and thereby produce a shock or expansion
wave after each restrictor.
. . .
The critical pressure ratio needed to achieve choking in any liquid/gas
mixture is, in general, a function of pressure and volumetric mixture
proportions and can, if necessary, be determined by experiment.
“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is
ordinarily within the skill of the art.” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215,
219 (CCPA 1980). Dunne shows that the propellant-to-solvent ratio was recognized as
a “result effective variable” by those skilled in the art; therefore, the recitation in claim 1
of a specific ratio is inadequate to patentably distinguish the claims over the prior art.
The examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the aerosol containers of
Dunne et al. for the aerosol hair care compositions of Mougin et al. for their art-
recognized purpose. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
do this to obtain fine foam and good atomization as suggested by Dunne et al.”
Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4. We agree that the cited references would have made
the product of instant claim 1 prima facie obvious.
Appellants argue that “neither Mougin [n]or Dunne teach or suggest that the
polycondensate be made up of an arrangement of blocks where the blocks are obtained
from: (1) at least one compound with two active hydrogen atoms per molecule; (2) at
least one diol containing at least one functional group chosen from acid radicals and
salts thereof; and (3) at least one isocyanate chosen from di- and polyisocyanates.”
Appeal Brief, page 6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007