Appeal No. 2007-0196 9
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,009
"[o]ther wear-resistant particles includ[ing], but [] not limited to,
carborundum, quartz, silica (sand), glass particles, glass beads, glass
spheres (hollow and/or filled), plastic grits, silicon carbide, diamond
dust (glass), hard plastics, reinforced polymers, organics, and the
like[.]"
Moreover, the preferred "particle size of the wear-resistant particles is from about
10 microns to about 350 microns, and more preferably from about 20 microns to
about 250 microns, and most preferably from about 30 microns to 200 microns."
(Emphasis added to stress the most preferred range since the examiner focused on
the broadest range, thus needlessly making the choice seem less likely.) Chen then
offers tests for those skilled in the art to determine whether the wear resistance is
adequate. Finally, Chen notes that wear-resistant particles may protrude above the
surface of the coating (i.e., provide texture) as a way of enhancing the wear
resistance of the coating. Nylon 12 is a hard plastic and 60 μm is within Chen's
most preferred size range. Moreover, Chen suggests that those skilled in the art are
comfortable with selecting an appropriate wear-resistance particle from the known
choices and testing its performance using art-recognized tests.
"Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined;
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and
the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved." Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). If after these determinations, the claimed invention
appears to have been obvious, the burden of production (not the ultimate burden of
proof) shifts to the patentee to provide so-called secondary considerations, i.e.,
contextual evidence, to show why in context the claimed invention is not as
obvious as it first appears.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013