Ex Parte Gaeta et al - Page 5


               Appeal Number: 2005-2231                                                                   Page 5                
               Application Number: 09/952,931                                                                                   

               selection of aluminum trihydrate as a filler.  Tumey specifically discloses aluminum trihydrate as               
               a useful filler.  Aluminum trihydate is ultraviolet transparent filler.                                          
                      Appellants further argue that Caul does not teach the ultraviolet polymerizable                           
               formulation.  Even if that is the case, there is no reversible error because such is taught in other             
               relied upon prior art.                                                                                           
                      Appellants argue that Kirk and Buchanan each require two resins, including a thermally                    
               curable resin not required by the claimed invention.  But the claims do not exclude the presence                 
               of a thermally curable resin, the claims use the transitional phrase “comprising.”  The transitional             
               phrase “comprising” opens the claim to the inclusion of other components.                                        
                      Appellants also argue that the prior art as a whole fails to suggest the desirability of                  
               selecting ultraviolet transparent fillers, fails to appreciate its advantages and fails to teach                 
               Appellants’ solution.  These arguments are not persuasive because a prima facie case of                          
               obviousness does not require that the applied prior art recognize and address the specidfic                      
               problem upon which the inventor was working.  In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d                         
               1897, 1901-1902 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc), cert denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).   The discovery of                  
               an additional advantage by applicant does not make the claims patentable.  See In re Kronig, 539                 
               F. 2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ 425, 427 (CCPA 1976) and In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,                          
               216 USPQ 1038, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                                                                         
                      Appellants argue that the combination is made based on impressible hindsight.  Namely,                    
               Appellants assert that “to support a determination of obviousness, it is essential that the prior art            
               teach the selection characteristics of the claimed invention, e.g., ultraviolet transparency,                    
               otherwise one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known to make the selection of the                     
               claimed invention.” (Brief, page 9)  On the contrary, the prior art need not teach Appellants’                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007