Appeal No. 1998-2534
Application No. 08/533,366
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In appropriate
circumstances, a single prior art reference can render a claim
obvious. See, e.g., B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking
Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 1996); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1680 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, there must be a showing of a
suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that
reference to the claimed invention in order to support a
conclusion of obviousness. This suggestion or motivation may
be derived from the prior art reference itself, from the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or from the
nature of the problem to be solved. See Pro-Mold & Tool Co.
v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Himelreich does disclose the determination of the stretch
conditions necessary to achieve the final desired properties
but, as stated by the examiner, this reference does not
disclose using hysteresis data to determine these stretch
conditions (see Himelreich, col. 9, ll. 29-45; Answer, page
3). The examiner has not presented any convincing evidence or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007