Appeal No. 1998-3118
Application No. 08/448,543
Windemuth et al. (Windemuth) 2,948,691 Aug. 09, 1960
Stewart 3,539,482 Nov. 10, 1970
Wolff DE 1 127 082 Apr. 05, 1962
(Translation copy attached)
Dekker et al. (Dekker) EP 0 497 404 Oct. 05, 1992
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Windemuth in view of Stewart, Wolff and Dekker.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for a thorough discussion of
the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above-noted rejection.
OPINION
This rejection cannot be sustained.
In order to establish obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
applied references must contain a suggestion to modify the prior art in such a manner as
to result in the claimed invention and must contain evidence supporting a reasonable
expectation that the modification in question would be successful. In re
O' Farrell 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
According to the examiner “[i]t would have been obvious to use TMXDI
[i.e., tetramethylxylene diisocyanate] in Windemuth’s polyurethane because Dekker
teaches this as a way to make a more flexible and adhesive polymer (see Table on page
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007