Ex Parte Chundury et al - Page 4

               Appeal 2007-3990                                                                             
               Application 10/194,943                                                                       
               78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (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.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ                  
               545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the                      
               art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a              
               conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of                         
               the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion              
               in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-407,                     
               160 USPQ 809, 811-12 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account                       
               not only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which                  
               one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”).               
               The analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and                    
               should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary                      
               skill in the relevant field to combine the elements” in the manner claimed.                  
               KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                                                  
                      Appellants’ principal argument is that Valligny teaches away from the                 
               use of a lubricant package comprising a blend of ethylene bis-stearamide                     
               wax and calcium stearate wax in the weight ratio of about 20:80 to about                     
               80:20 in a thermoplastic olefin blend.  Appellants maintain, therefore, that                 
               the combination of Valligny with any of Reddy, or Takano, or Jay, the                        
               secondary references being cited only to show the amount and ratio of                        
               ethylene bis-stearamide wax and calcium stearate, is improper.                               



                                                     4                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013