Appeal 1997-2375
Application 08/376,282
finding, the examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to use for that utility a combination of (1) the Jex
"amine" and (2) the Plueddemann composition comprising a (a)
coupling agent and (b) a disilyl crosslinker. In support of
the rejection, the examiner relies on In re Kerkoven, 626 F.2d
846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (it is generally
prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which
is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose
in order to form a third composition which is also used for
that purpose).
Although it might be debatable, we will assume that the
examiner is correct in finding that the Jex "amine" and
Plueddemann composition have the same utility. We disagree,
however, that the rationale of Kerkoven applies to the facts
of this case. The disilyl crosslinker of Plueddemann is just
that; it reacts with the coupling agent through the OR groups.
The same would be true of the Jex "amine" which also has OR
groups. Thus, we do not have a case where an applicant has
mixed known ingredients to make a mixture of discrete
ingredients having a utility similar to the utility of each of
the ingredients. When the Jex "amine" is mixed with the
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007