Appeal 2007-2154
Application 10/374,773
particular limit on the polystyrene molecular weight by the relative term
“low” that patentably distinguishes the claimed material from the materials
disclosed and suggested by Betso. Moreover, Betso discloses that the other
polymer ingredient (polystyrene) can be present in the interpolymer/polymer
material in amounts up to 90 weight percent, which is suggestive of a blend
within the claimed range (Betso; col. 13, ll. 46-51). See In re Harris,
409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1954-55 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1468-69, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936
(Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302-03, 182 USPQ 549,
553 (CCPA 1974). Appellants have not furnished any evidence establishing
unexpected results for the claimed material. In this regard, the material of
Betso would have been expected to be injection moldable and have
properties corresponding to those claimed (capability of making a casting
mold therefrom) given the commonalities of the material of Betso and those
disclosed by Appellants.
On this record and for the reasons set forth in the Answer and herein,
we shall also affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14, 16,
17 and 39-41.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 39-41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Betso is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013