Appeal No. 2000-0482
Application 08/569,256
unpersuasive since Horiuchi’s experiments do demonstrate that the
lifetime of the release agent is increased by the addition of
PTFE, thus providing motivation to include PTFE in the
compositions of Horiuchi to extend the life thereof. See
Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4, referencing Tables 10 and 11,
experiments 6 and 4. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190
USPQ 425, 427-28 (CCPA 1976) (obviousness does not require that
references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor, rather, all that is required is that the prior art as a
whole provides some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references).
Appellants further argue that:
[t]here is no teaching in Wagner ‘586 to
suggest the preferential use of only PTFE
without a filler. As a result, there is no
motivation for one skilled in the art to
combine the teachings of Wagner ‘586 with
those of the primary references, since there
is no suggestion in Wagner ‘586 of using PTFE
without the mineral filler.
Appeal Brief, page 13. In addition, Appellants suggest that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Horiuchi and Wagner since Horiuchi only
teaches the use of PTFE to impart hardness to the film and not to
act as a mold release agent. Appeal Brief, pages 9-10. Neither
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007