Appeal No. 1997-1997
Application No. 08/263,496
not established sufficient motivation why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have modified the teachings of Watts in
a manner that ignores the expressed teachings. In general, it
is not a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in
the art to operate outside a range disclosed in the prior art.
In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907, 175 USPQ 93, 95 (CCPA 1972).
As for the examiner's rejection of claim 4 under § 103
over Carroll in view of Watts, we disagree with the examiner,
for the reasons set forth above with respect to the § 102
rejection, that "Carroll shows the prepolymer of the claims"
(page 4 of Answer).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
MARC L. CAROFF )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
EDWARD C. KIMLIN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007