Ex Parte Chang et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-2154                                                                                   
                Application 10/374,773                                                                             
                90 percent by weight, a proportionality that embraces the proportionality of                       
                these ingredients, as disclosed by Appellants (see Betso, col. 13, ll. 46-51                       
                and Specification 15:18-26).  Given these commonalities of ingredients and                         
                proportions of the materials disclosed by Betso and Appellants, we agree                           
                with the Examiner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the                            
                materials disclosed and suggested by Betso have properties corresponding to                        
                the properties of Appellants’ claimed material, including the capability for                       
                injection molding thereof as required by appealed claim 1.  Where, as here,                        
                the Examiner has provided a reasonable basis to infer that the claimed and                         
                suggested prior art materials are substantially identical, the burden is                           
                properly shifted to Appellants to produce evidence which demonstrates that                         
                the prior art material does not necessarily or inherently possess the                              
                characteristics of the claimed material.  See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-                     
                55, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).  Indeed, Betso discloses that their                          
                material is capable of extrusion and the material is curable (Betso, col. 19, ll.                  
                23-39).  These characteristics are highly suggestive of the capability of the                      
                material being injection moldable.  Appellants have not established                                
                otherwise.                                                                                         
                       It follows that, on this record, we shall affirm the Examiner’s                             
                obviousness rejection of claims 1-10.                                                              
                Claims 11-13                                                                                       
                       We select claim 11 as the representative claim for this claim grouping.                     
                Appellants’ generalized contention that dependent claims 11-13 require a                           
                low molecular polymer in the recited claimed proportions to the                                    
                interpolymer is not a persuasive separate argument for the patentability of                        
                this grouping of dependent claims.  In particular, we note that representative                     

                                                        6                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013