Appeal 2006-2300
Application 10/615,746
subject matter of a claim is obvious] need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006)). See DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir.
2006)(“The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be
combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common
knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”)
See also In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not
require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor.”).
Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to each of claims
2, 12, 13, and 20. We likewise find these arguments unpersuasive for the
reasons well-stated in the Examiner’s Answer.
With respect to claim 2, Appellant argues that “there is no indication
that fiber uniformity is achieved throughout the foam – or, more particularly,
that the fibers become ‘substantially distributed’ within the foam” (Reply Br.
6). Contrary to Appellant’s contention, we find that the Examiner provided
a reasonable basis to conclude that the combined teachings of Londrigan and
Hoffmann suggest Appellant’s claimed process and would result in a low
binder expandable fiber mat having fibers substantially distributed within the
polymeric foam as claimed (Answer 12). We further note that Londrigan
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013