Appeal No. 2000-1448 10
Application No. 08/709,975
at 95 to 105oC, for periods of time up to 668 days. See Table 4, Table 7, and Table 9.
The data recorded in the specification is persuasive of the utilization of the combined
stabilizers in a molding composition in permanent contact with water.
We conclude that the combined references in the third rejection are insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Inasmuch as the references together are insufficient to meet the requirements of
obviousness, it follows that each of the rejections directed to Mülhaupt, Spivack or
GB ‘362 is likewise insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999) ("[T]he best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based
obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching
or motivation to combine prior art references").
DECISION
The rejection of claims 17, 18, 29, 30 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mülhaupt or Spivack is reversed.
The rejection of claims 17, 18, 29, 30 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over GB ‘362 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007