Appeal 2007-1169
Application 09/850,857
resistance. The Examiner stated that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the paneling art to include an impact modifier to impart
impact resistance to Heilmayr’s PVC panels. The Examiner also stated that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to use regrind materials in
the center layer of Heilmayr’s triwall PVC panels to reduce costs.
Applicant contends that its claimed invention includes specific
parameters that distinguish the invention from the prior art. (Br 11). In
particular, Applicant directs our attention to 1) the thickness of the
individual layers; 2) the specific gravity of the layers; 3) the percent range of
impact modifiers; 4) the presence or absence of impact modifier in the center
layer; 5) the overall thickness of the panel; and 6) the ability to meet
ASTMD standard 3679-96. (Br 12-13).
Applicant fails to provide a sufficient explanation and/or evidence as
to why these particular parameters are unobvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art. For example, Heilmayr describes a center layer having a thickness
within Applicant’s claimed range and an upper and lower layer thickness
that overlaps that of Applicant. Furthermore, while Applicant’s claims
recite 2 to 8 parts per hundred parts of impact modifier in the inner and outer
layers, Lause informs one of ordinary skill in the art that a suitable amount
of impact modifier for PVC panels ranges from 0.4 to 10 parts per hundred.
As recognized by the Examiner, where the general conditions of the claims
are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013