Appeal 2007-1945
Application 10/669,215
amount corresponding to 12 to 16 ppm elemental titanium) and bisphenol A
polycarbonate, the appealed claims are not so limited. The claims, as
written, embrace thermoplastic compositions materially different from those
shown in Examples 1 through 4 of the Specification. Specifically, the
claimed thermoplastic compositions not only include polyesters,
polycarbonates and titanium-containing catalysts (including the amount of
elemental titanium) materially different from those shown in Examples 1
through 4 of the Specification, but also include catalyst deactivating agents
not included in Examples 1 through 4 of the Specification. On this record,
the Appellants have not demonstrated that the multifarious thermoplastic
compositions encompassed by the appealed claims, including those
containing, inter alia, Sublett’s titanium-containing catalyst, would behave in
the same manner as those shown in Examples 1 through 4 of the
Specification.
2(C). CONCLUSION
Thus, based on the totality of record, including due consideration of
the Appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we determine that
the prior art references relied upon by the Examiner would have rendered the
claimed subject matter obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013