Ex Parte Papathomas - Page 10



          Appeal No.  2005-0181                                                       
          Application No.  09/781,631                                                 

          be an acrylate or methacrylate.  See page 8, second paragraph of            
          appellant’s specification.  Tang discloses that the core                    
          comprises a polybutadiene or poly(meth)acrylate. See column 5,              
          lines 29-37.  The shell is of a crosslinked copolymer as                    
          described in column 5, lines 38-68 and column 6, lines 1-30.  In            
          particular, the shell can be (meth)acrylates. See column 5, lines           
          55-58.  Appellant’s claim 31 requires that the shell has a glass            
          transition temperature above room temperature.  Because Tang’s              
          shell can be the same material, we agree with the examiner that             
          Tang’s shell has the same glass transition temperature.                     
          Likewise, Tang’s core will have the same glass transition                   
          temperature as appellant’s core for the same reason.  While                 
          appellant argues that Tang is forced to cross-link the core to              
          improve toughness, and this reduces his Tg, appellants’ claim 31            
          does not distinguish from the material in Tang in this regard.              
               On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, appellant does not dispute              
          that Tang discloses the same epoxy resin composition as that                
          claimed in claim 31.  Rather, appellant argues that Tang does not           
          realize or solve the problems described by appellant concerning             
          the use of an encapsulant with an organic substrate or an FCA               
          environment.  We note that use limitations of a product being               
          claimed has no significance in a product claim.  Cf. In re                  
          Wiggins, 397 F.2d 356, 359 n.4, 158 USPQ 199, 201-202 n.4 (CCPA             
          1968).  In the case of In re Wiggins, the court noted that a                
          composition would not appear to be different in any material                
          manner from the composition of appellants’ claims no matter to              
          what ultimate use it would be put.  Id.  We therefore agree with            
          the examiner that use of the encapsulant in an FCA environment              
          and with an organic substrate is not the issue here. Because                
          appellant does not dispute the examiner’s findings that Tang                
          discloses the same composition, such supports a prima facie case            
                                         -10-                                         




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007