Based upon the above analysis and findings, we conclude that there is an
insufficient nexus between the coating composition of Kohda and those of Hermes and
Takayanagi to provide adequate motivation to substitute their coating compositions for
those of Kohda.
The examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan confronted with the
same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in the manner
claimed. We determine that there is no reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine
the references in the manner proposed by the examiner. Accordingly, the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The rejection of the
examiner is not sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007