Appeal No. 95-3782
Application 08/048,371
use of the disclosed polysiloxane and appellants do not
present objective evidence that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not “look to the heat stabilizing effect” of the
polysiloxane in Foster (see the brief, page 3), especially
given the problem recognition in the art of stability of
polyethylene to high temperatures (see Eager, column 1, lines
25-45, and Foster, column 1, lines 18-22).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
disclosure and teachings of Eager and Foster. Based on the
totality of the record, with due consideration to the evidence
and arguments of appellants, we find that a preponderance of
the evidence weighs in favor of obviousness within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Eager in view of Foster is affirmed.
OTHER ISSUES
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007