Appeal No. 95-0192
Application No. 07/914,228
polyurethane products. The conventional solid flame
retardants for polyurethane include those recited in claim 2.
See Answer, page 5, referring to Hess and Nissen. Although
none of these prior art references, as argued by appellants,
discloses appellants’ reason for combining polyurea particles
and a solid flame retardant with a liquid organic
polyisocyanate, i.e., solving a sedimentation problem, we note
that such reason need not be disclosed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness as long as the prior art references
themselves provide a suggestion to combine polyurea particles
and a solid flame retardant with a liquid organic
polyisocyanate within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In
re Kemp, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (the suggestion to combine ingredients need not be
identical to that of appellants to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness);
In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA
1979)(the discovery of a problem does not necessarily result
in a patentable invention especially where the claimed
solution is obvious from the prior art).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007