Appeal 2006-2380
Application 10/791,079
range. No criticality (i.e., unexpected results) of the claimed polymeric
binder range has been shown by Appellants. Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578, 16
USPQ2d at 1936 (explaining that “applicant must show that the particular
range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves
unexpected results relative to the prior art range.”). Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount
of polymeric binder (i.e., thermoplastic and thermoset) so as to optimize the
production of an article (Gardner col. 9, ll. 1-3). 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.
We add that it would have been obvious to combine the claimed
weight percentage of “a polymeric binder” (i.e., “about 1.25 to about 2.25
percent by weight”) with Gardner’s powdered metal blend since such would
be a predictable variation in that no criticality of the claimed range (e.g.,
unexpected results) has been shown. KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Stated differently, the
combination of the claimed weight percentage of “a polymeric binder” (i.e.,
“about 1.25 to about 2.25 percent by weight”) with Gardner’s powdered
metal blend is merely the predictable use of prior art elements (i.e., the
amount of binder in the powder composition) according to their established
functions (i.e., to prevent internal fractures in the green molded article (e.g.,
to enhance the “green” strength of the article) and to completely volatilize
the binder after forming the article to improve the infiltration of the metal)
(Gardner, col. 7, ll. 29-39, 60-68; col. 9, ll. 1-3). Id.
Regarding Appellants’ hindsight argument, Gardner discloses using
thermoplastic binders and thermoplastic-thermoset binders (Gardner, col. 7,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013