Appeal 2006-2380
Application 10/791,079
Therefore, the claim phrase “a polymeric binder” includes a mixture of
polymeric binders.
Since the Examiner’s construction of “a polymeric binder” is
reasonable, we address whether the weight percent of the polymeric binder
claimed (i.e., “about 1.25 to about 2.25% by weight”) is rendered obvious by
Gardner’s disclosure.
Gardner discloses that a particularly useful thermoplastic-thermoset
binder has, in relevant part, 29.6 parts “Epon” 825 bis-phenol-A epoxy resin
(i.e., the thermoset portion of the thermoplastic-thermoset binder) (Gardner,
col. 8, ll. 63-64). The Examiner applies this disclosure to Gardner’s
Example 2, which indicates that the binder amount used is 57 grams (i.e., 5.4
wt% of the total blend disclosed in Example 2) and calculates that the weight
percent of thermosetting polymeric binder in the mixture is 1.5 wt% (i.e.,
5.4% x .296). The Examiner’s calculation with respect to Example 2 has not
been challenged by Appellants.
Gardner further discloses that the amounts of the thermoplastic-
thermoset binder may have to be empirically adjusted to optimize production
of a part (Gardner, col. 9, ll. 1-3). Accordingly, Gardner recognizes that the
amount of thermoset and thermoplastic binder in the mixture are result-
effective variables such that it would have been obvious for an artisan with
ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for such art-
recognized, result-effective parameters. Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578, 16
USPQ2d at 1936-37; Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276, 205 USPQ at 219; Aller,
220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ at 235.
From the record before us, the amount of “a polymeric binder” in
claim 1 has not been established to be anything other than an optimizable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013