Appeal No. 1998-1369
Application No. 08/622,620
left col., l. 45; compare with appellants’ specification, page
3, l. 31-page 4, l. 19).
Appellants also argue that Eby does not teach or suggest
appellants’ problem or a means for its solution (Brief, page
6). This argument is not persuasive since the motivation to
combine or modify the reference does not have to be identical
to that of appellants to establish obviousness. See In re
Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
Appellants consequently argue that there is no reason of
record or basis in the reference which leads a person of
ordinary skill in the art to select the components from Eby to
form the claimed compositions (Brief, page 7). Appellants
cite In re Geiger , purportedly rejecting the reasoning of In2
re Kerkhoven , for the holding that prima facie obviousness of3
a combination composition is not established even though the
individual components are known, absent some teaching or
2Appellants have not provided a citation for this
decision but it is presumed, since there is more than one
decision of this name, that the citation is 815 F.2d 686, 2
USPQ2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
3626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007