Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
protection on a reinforcing mat also including 50 to 95% by
weight glass fibers” (id.). It is Appellant’s position that
“the present invention [of a nonwoven fibrous web with about 10
to less than 50% glass fibers] represents a change in course for
the industry after [over] 30 years of product development”
(Brief, page 10). Thus, Appellant contends that “[t]here is no
logical basis from which one could conclude that such a change
would be obvious to those skilled in the art” (id.).
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s “industry standard”
argument. The evidence of an “industry standard” consists
solely of the patents to Heidweiller and Helwig ‘843.
Significantly, neither of these patents teaches that the glass
fiber content ranges thereof are “industry standards” or that
glass fiber contents below 50% are unacceptable. Under these
circumstances, the argument and evidence of record are
insufficient to convince us that a glass fiber content of less
than 50%, such as 49.95%, would not have been obvious to an
artisan. On the contrary, an artisan would have used a glass
fiber content of, for example 49.95%, based on a reasonable
expectation that the resulting mat would have the same
successful properties as Heidweiller’s 50% glass fiber content
mat. Titanium Metals Corp., 778 F.2d at 782-83, 227 USPQ at 779.
Also see In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681
(Fed. Cir. 1988)(For obviousness under §103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success).
We now address the diameter of the polyethylene
terephthalate fiber. We note that independent claim 1 includes
an upper limit for the diameter of the polyethylene
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007