Appeal 2007-2603
Application 10/958,559
4). Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Tomka
discloses a thermoplastically processable starch with a moisture content of
less than 1.0%, the starch being mixed with an additive or plasticizer and
used in the construction of extruded sheets (Br. 4). Rather, Appellants argue
that the Examiner has relied on improper hindsight reasoning in concluding
that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the
teachings of Ryan, either alone or in combination with Tomka, to develop
multicomponent fibers containing less than 1% free water (Br. 5).
Appellants’ argument is based on their contention that Ryan is silent
regarding the use of destructurized starch containing less than 1% water and
does not describe materials in relation to water content (Br. 5).
While the analysis in support of an obviousness determination should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed, KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007), “the
analysis [of whether the 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,” KSR, 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013