Appeal No. 2001-0676
Application No. 08/941,132
The claimed subject matter is directed to two different
embodiments. See, e.g., claims 9 and 10. The first embodiment
defined by claim 9 is directed to a process for producing a graft
copolymerized natural rubber, wherein natural rubber is initially
deproteinized and then is graft-copolymerized. The second
embodiment defined by claim 10 is directed to a process for
producing an epoxidized natural rubber, wherein natural rubber is
initially deproteinized and then is epoxidized.
Under Section 103, the obviousness of an invention cannot be
established by combining the teachings of the cited prior art
absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the
combination. See ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore
Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
This does not mean that the cited prior art references must
specifically suggest making the combination. See B.F. Goodrich Co.
V. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d
1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7
USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rather, the test for obvious-
ness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007