Appeal No. 95-1568
Application 08/124,747
component C is to be found in formula III other than his conclusory statement that it
does. The examiner reasons that the term copolymer of the claims does not exclude a
polymer having two or more dissimilar monomers. Evans ‘811 describes the use of
2
silica, albeit in the reaction process in forming the heat cured rubber composition, the
examiner takes official notice that since various catalysts are well known curing agents
for silicone compositions crosslinkable through vinyl groups, the addition of a curing
agent would have been prima facie obvious.
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has the burden under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). This burden can be satisfied when the PTO presents
evidence, by means of some teaching, suggestion, or inference either in the applied
prior art or generally available knowledge, that would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art or would have motivated a
person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the applied references in the proposed
manner to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074,
2The examiner relies on Evans ‘774 to show reinforcing silica fillers
2
having a surface area of 150-160 m /gm, a range within the claimed range for
components.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007