Appeal No. 2005-1083
Application No. 09/950,642
We note that sheet #5 allegedly representative of a prior art
invention is made by adding 6.0 grams of nickel fibers (may be
coated or uncoated) to 4 liters of water and agitated (using the
same agitating speed and duration as above) the mixture before
adding 0.08 grams of polyvinyl alcohol (dispersing aid) of an
unknown source to the mixture, without further dilution. Sheet
#6 allegedly representative of a prior art invention is made by a
process used to make sheet #5, except that unknown agitation
conditions are employed and “the water [is replaced with] the
large amount of polyvinyl alcohol solution that we use in Sample
#4.”
Second, we note that the declaration does not demonstrate
that the alleged improvements are unexpected. In re Freeman,
474 F.2d 1318, 1324, 177 USPQ 139, 143 (CCPA 1973). As indicated
supra, there is a reasonable expectation from reading Battista
and/or Terliska that the earlier the dispersing aid is used the
better the dispersion of the metal fibers, thus preventing
excessive settling and fiber entanglement. Thus, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably expected the alleged
improvements resulting from adding metal fibers to a dispensing
liquid containing a dispersing aid which would have promoted
dispersibility of the metal fibers from the moment the fibers are
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007