Appeal No. 2005-0359
Application No. 09/333,917
i.e., a tacky resin.” (Appeal brief at 8; reply brief filed on
Aug. 24, 2004 at 2.) We do not find the proffered evidence to
be persuasive of nonobviousness. Hari suggests the effects of
paraffin and curing on surface tack. (Column 4, lines 52-64;
column 5, lines 64-66.) Hence, it is our judgment that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
determine, through nothing more than routine experimentation,
the optimum levels of paraffin and the multifunctional (i.e.,
curing) monomer to provide a tack-free surface.4 In re Peterson,
315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of
scientists or artisans to improve upon what is generally known
provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of
percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”);
In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA
1980)(“[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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are
4 The appellants admit: “[I]t is otherwise well-known that
the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate, because it is polyfunctional,
acts as a curing agent and therefore, its amount, relative to
the other monomeric components, will affect so-called ‘curing
parameters.’” (Appeal brief at 11.)
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007