Appeal No. 1998-3106
Application 08/679,603
titanium compound in Schulz’s composition to obtain the
benefit taught by Antonen (col. 2, lines 51-58) of the
combination of good adhesion to metal and glass substrates,
which can be used by Schulz (col. 8, lines 54-57), and a rapid
cure rate and good dielectric properties of a platinum
catalyzed composition, which is used by Schulz (col. 2, lines
6-27). The appellants do not provide any evidence or
technical argument to the contrary.
The appellants rely upon the above-discussed arguments
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine the references and that there would have
been no predictability from one system to the next (brief,
pages 3-5). These arguments are not persuasive because, as
discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine the references to obtain in Schulz’s
composition the benefits taught by Antonen and Bilgrien of
components disclosed therein and, in view of the similarity of
the systems, would have had a reasonable expectation of
success in doing so. Hence, the claimed invention would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
over the applied references. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,
-11-11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007