Appeal No. 2006-1586
Application No. 09/933,360
We do not subscribe to appellants’ position. Appellants
have not established on the record that one or ordinary skill in
the art would interpret Woldenberg as necessarily describing a
granulation step that is not disclosed. Although it may be
conventional in the art to granulate polycarbonate before it is
shipped to a location for molding, such procedure is a
commercial concern. In our view, one of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably find a description in Woldenberg of both
commercial and non-commercial productions of molded
polycarbonate, e.g., a pilot plant process or continuous process
where the polycarbonate is both made and molded in the same
plant. In such cases there would be no need to granulate the
polycarbonate before it is molded. Consequently, we find that
Woldenberg fairly describes, within the meaning of § 102,
commercial and non-commercial processes that entail granulating
and non-granulating, respectively, with the disclosure
pertaining to mixing the conventional additives at room
temperature being part of a commercial process that includes
shipping of granules. While appellants want a granulating step
to be read into the Woldenberg disclosure, appellants have not
refuted the reasonable inference that Woldenberg’s failure to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007