Appeal 2007-3990
Application 10/194,943
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Valligny in view of Reddy, or Takano, or
Jay.3
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellants, the
issue before us is: Has the Examiner made accurate and sufficient factual
findings such that it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to utilize a blend of ethylene-bis
stearamide wax and calcium stearate in the weight ratio of ethylene-bis
stearamide wax to calcium stearate wax of from about 20:80 to about 80:20
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103? We answer this question in the
affirmative.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have
been 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 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-741,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
3 Appellants have argued the patentability of the claimed invention together.
We will limit our discussion to claim 9.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013