Appeal No. 1997-3609 Application No. 08/483,349 component from the polyurethane adhesive disclosed in Dormish. While we recognize that the examiner has offered a reason as to why one would be "motivated" to omit the amines from the composition of Dormish, the examiner has, nonetheless, failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We do not doubt that one skilled in this art could remove the diamine/triamine component from the adhesive composition described by Dormish. However, that is not the test under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification."). Rather, in order to support a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, there must be some reason, suggestion, or motivation found in the prior art whereby a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention would have made the modification required. Manifestly, that knowledge cannot come from the applicants' invention itself. Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 678-79, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007