Appeal No. 1997-2977
Application No. 08/431,688
the motivation or suggestion to combine two thermal control
coatings to obtain their additive or cumulative effect flows
logically from the teaching in the prior art that each is
individually known for the same purpose.
In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA
1980).
Moreover, we agree with the examiner’s ultimate
conclusion that, for terrestrial applications, it would have
been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to apply Mozelewski’s fluoropolymer coating over the white
paint coating of Babel’s coated structure, motivated by a
reasonable expectation of improving the weatherability of the
structure (Mozelewski column 10, line 63 to column 11, line
5).
In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
by a different process); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195
USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (holding that the burden of proof
shifts to an applicant where the claimed and prior art
products are identical or substantially identical, or are
produced by identical or substantially identical processes).
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007