Appeal 2007-4193
Application 10/367,432
1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.” (citations omitted)).
We further determine it reasonably appears that one of ordinary skill
in the internal combustion engine crankcase lubricating oil arts would have
recognized the problem raised by the ERG system in diesel engines under
certain operating conditions as acknowledged by Appellants, and thus,
would have been motivated to solve it. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (“When there is
a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp.”); .In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 574, 184 USPQ 607, 613 (CCPA
1975) (“The significance of evidence that a problem was known in the prior
art is, of course, that knowledge of a problem provides a reason or
motivation for workers in the art to apply their skill to its solution.”); In re
Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 243, 147 USPQ 420, 421 (CCPA 1965); In re
Goodman, 339 F.2d 228, 232-33, 144 USPQ 30, 33-34 (CCPA 1964). Thus,
this person would have been led by Stuart’s disclosure that the additives
thereof address corrosion problems to, among other things, crankcase piston
ring bearings caused by acids resulting from similar operating conditions, to
combine Stuart’s corrosion inhibitor additives with those of Willis in
formulating internal combustion engine crankcase lubricating oil
compositions.
Turning now to the evidence in the Specification as relied on by
Appellants in the Brief, we find the results obtained with Samples C, G, and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013