Appeal No. 1997-3563 Page 6
Application No. 08/321,460
applicable to the bonding method disclosed in Chung without
considering the requirement for adequate "open time" as
discussed in Chung.
The mere fact that the prior art could be modified as
proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
examiner must explain why the prior art would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the desirability of the
modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at
1783-84. The examiner has not provided such an explanation.
Concerning this matter, the examiner’s comments at page 4
of the answer beg the question as to why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to utilize only a portion of
Dammann’s teachings regarding the activatable complexed metal
catalyst in combination with Chung while ignoring the other
teachings of Dammann regarding the amine activator addition
resulting in rapid curing, which would be contrary to the
"open time interval" desired by Chung. When it is necessary
to select elements of various teachings in order to form the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007