Appeal No. 1996-1566
Application No. 08/095,369
free standing cured films and molded articles. See Examples
1-6 and column 8, lines 4-7. We conclude that there is no
suggestion for utilization of the compositions of Murphy or
any component taught therein for either coating or priming.
Based upon the above considerations, we further conclude
that there is no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to select the organometallic
compound disclosed by either Sumida or Murphy as a catalyst
for the primer composition taught by Endo.
In view of the above analysis, we have determined that
the examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by the facts. “Where the legal conclusion [of
obviousness] is not supported by the facts it cannot stand.”
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967).
Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we need not address the experimental results
relied upon by appellants. See Brief, page 8. See 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).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007