Appeal 97-1803
Application 08/300,902
ORDERED that the examiner's rejection of claims 1-5,
7 and 9-11 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Gianchandai in view of Brown and Gallucci is reversed.
)))))))))) @ ))))))))))
The claimed composition calls for a three-element
composition comprising (1) a poly(phenylene ether) resin, (2)
a polyester resin and (3) a flow promoting amide. The
examiner found prior art references describing each of the
three elements, some in combination with others. Based on the
prior art the examiner reasoned that the claimed three-element
composition would have been obvious.
Our appellate reviewing court recently made the following
observation in Smiths Industries Medical Systems v. Vital
Signs, 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir.
1999):
There is no basis for concluding that an invention
would have been obvious solely because it is a
combination of elements that were known in the art
at the time of the invention. The relevant inquiry
is whether there is a reason, suggestion, or
motivation in the prior art that would lead one of
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007